Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

God, King, and Country: British identity and the Australian Defence Force

My great-grandfather, my grandfather, me, and my son all wore our country's uniform.

Speech at 'Menzies and the British Commonwealth of Nations', Robert Menzies Institute Conference at the University of Melbourne, 28th November 2025.

"God, King, and Country" is an intriguing concept. As a political scientist, my approach tends to be historical institutionalism, focusing on legacies and how they inform policy choices in the present, as well as elements like continuity, disruption, and often serendipity.

In terms of serendipity, it's notable that Lord Kitchener was invited to Australia by Prime Minister Alfred Deakin to report on the Australian land defence forces, specifically the Australian Army. At the time, there was controversy over whether it should have been Lord Fisher to review the Navy, which might have made more strategic sense. As it happened, Kitchener arrived in 1909 and stayed until 1910. He travelled extensively throughout Australia, visiting places like Seymour, Darwin, Townsville, and elsewhere. He was greeted with great fanfare; the country folk particularly admired this war hero, known as Kitchener of Khartoum. Kitchener, of course, became the face of the First World War recruitment campaign. Eliza and I discussed this last night, noting how Uncle Sam is a fictional character, whereas Kitchener was a real, living hero. He was often criticised for sending many young men from British country towns to their deaths. In any case, Kitchener advised the formation of the Royal Military College Duntroon, which was established in 1911 along the lines of Sandhurst in the UK. It was quite natural that British identity would form part of the early institutions of the Australian Army in particular, and the military more generally. Kitchener remarked that Australians were natural soldiers.

I probably won't offer any groundbreaking theoretical contributions today, but one thing that stands out for me is my personal connection: I am one of four generations in my family who served in the Australian Army—my great-grandfather, my grandfather, myself, and my son. The Australian Army has been part of our family history for a very long time, and it feels entirely natural. As a teenager, I had the Union Jack and the Australian flag hanging in my bedroom, and I took them to Duntroon for my room in 1992 and 1993. I don't know exactly why I did that—it just felt right. That's what I mean: there's something inherently natural about that British identity in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

When it comes to "God," my first experience in the military was the laying up of the colors for the 51st Battalion, the Far North Queensland Regiment, in a church during a church parade. That was my initial encounter with the military. I'll never forget at Duntroon the trooping of the colors on the Queen's birthday. The call was "three cheers for Her Most Gracious Majesty: hip, hip, huzzah!" Honestly, if you're not a monarchist after shouting "huzzah," what's wrong with you? Again, it felt very natural. And for "country," the 51st Battalion's motto is Ducit Amor Patriae, which essentially means "love of country leads me." Thus, God, King, and Country are embedded in the symbolism, practices, and institutions of the Australian Defence Force.

For me, this is deeply personal. What I'll argue, in terms of Robert Menzies, is that he was part of that continuity. I dare say that without Queen Elizabeth II reigning for so long, we wouldn't have had the same level of continuity. I don't know if King Charles would have had the same appeal had he been the monarch we relied upon as the representative of the Crown for Australia. There was a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth II, shared by Robert Menzies—famously "British to the bootstraps"—as seen in his poem about the Queen walking by him in Old Parliament House. So much of this feels natural, serendipitous, and enduring. The importance of God, King, and Country in the ADF stems from the unique sense of purpose it provides, which most other professions lack. When commissioned as an officer, you receive a commission from the sovereign—in my case, the Queen—stating that you are to follow orders, even if that means sending your soldiers, and yourself, to their deaths. That's profoundly powerful, and it's shared by warrant officers and other ranks as well. I'm examining Menzies' role in perpetuating this ideal, which truly begins in the modern ADF context with the Korean War. I'll explain that in detail, but I want to start at the end.

The Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant was introduced in 2019 under the Morrison government, building on earlier veteran support initiatives from previous administrations, including the Howard era, and has been reaffirmed in recent years. It's interesting because my generation of Australian soldiers was very disillusioned with the Returned and Services League (RSL) and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). Only in recent years have we started returning to the fold. I don't know why, but I think we missed it, and we've reached an age where we realise its importance and want to reintegrate it into our lives. I wasn't even aware of the Covenant until my hearing failed—as an artillery officer, of course—and I discovered I was pre-registered for hearing aids. Suddenly, I needed an RSL advocate, so I rejoined, dug out my old badge from 1999, and off I went. The Covenant introduces an American-style "thank you for your service" ethos, with its oath: "for what they have done, this we will do." One of its most important aspects is that the DVA covers all mental health treatment for every single soldier, sailor, and air person who has served. Things have changed significantly, much like after the First and Second World Wars, in terms of veterans' status. Yet this Covenant sits comfortably alongside British military customs. Attlee's idea of the New Jerusalem was similar in its general commitment to looking after veterans, though with more of a socialist bent than Sir Robert Menzies would have liked.

The living British traditions in the ADF are evident. In the regular army, I served with the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery. This title was granted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1962. I'll never forget, as a young officer—a subaltern—being the newest member of the regiment and having to say grace at a dining-in night. These are formal events where you're not allowed to leave for the bathroom until the loyal toast is done, and they could be quite excruciating back in the 1990s—I can only imagine what they were like before that. The grace was simple: "For what we are about to receive, thank God." When I was told to say that, it reminded me of Duntroon, where I once asked the regimental drill sergeant major for advice on a parade and got a bum steer, landing me on extra drills for two weeks. I was always wary of pranks, like a tradesperson being sent for skyhooks—that was the culture. But the grace was indeed correct. The loyal toast for the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery in my day was "the Queen, our Captain General." Of course, King Charles is now the Captain General. These are direct, frequent affirmations of the Crown and the Christian tradition.

That tradition continues in the RSL, which has its roots in the First World War. Like the Gallipoli Memorial Club in Sydney, which still exists, they initially faced issues with restricting membership to only Gallipoli veterans, but that didn't last long historically. They've had to adapt over time. Even today, at RSL meetings, we usually have a Union Jack alongside the Australian flag, and we always recite the Ode with the Last Post—it's almost archaic but very moving.

I mentioned the Korean War. My grandfather, whom I knew well, served in the Second World War and then joined the 67th Battalion, deploying to Japan in Hiroshima as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF). Australia was naturally part of this Commonwealth effort. The 67th Battalion became the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR) in 1948, which was our paratroop battalion until recent times. The "Royal" title was appended to the Australian Regiment in 1949. It's interesting that we began serving with Americans as the Royal Australian Regiment during the Korean War in 1950. Before that, it was simply the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) and BCOF. As a forward observer in the artillery, I worked directly with Bravo Company, 6 RAR, in Brisbane, and you really feel part of it. They are extremely proud of the Royal Australian Regiment. The Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force have their own traditions, which I can't speak to as much, but we see the continuation of the British Army regimental system in Australia. In my time, we still used titles like SO3 (staff officer grade three), which was a captain, followed by your specialty like command and signals. That has now changed to American titles for interoperability, but the British have evolved along similar lines anyway—it's more of an alliance thing. Honors and awards are still approved by the sovereign, and the Crown remains the legal source of military authority in Australia.

The RSL was very much focused on imperial service, even in the interwar and postwar periods. My grandfather, after retiring, lived in an RSL home called War Haven in Cairns, which was essentially an entire village of veterans—you can imagine the shenanigans. But there was this sense of loyalty, belonging, and camaraderie. Service in the two world wars was largely seen as service to the Empire. Even though Curtin brought back the 6th, 7th, and 9th Divisions, turning toward the Americans out of necessity, it hasn't diminished that inculcated Britishness in the ADF. Returned soldiers received enhanced social status; if you look at property maps of Australia, you'll see the impact of land grants and other benefits, particularly in country towns. Military service was a badge of superior citizenship, rooted in British imperial loyalty.

Menzies was self-described as "British to the bootstraps"—it's almost a cliché when discussing him these days—but he sought to preserve a cultural Puritan inflection of British character in Australia. I think it's unfair when the left admonishes him for this, as he did lecture in the United States and had fond connections there. Through his demeanor, in my view, he reinvigorated monarchist and imperial sentiment in the 1950s and 1960s. When you add that our military units were gaining royal titles—which still exist relatively unchanged today—it created a favorable climate for the RSL's British-oriented veterans' culture, which persists to this day. The Royal Australian Regiment formed from the BCOF, and this happened under the Chifley government. This is not all Menzies' doing, but in my previous chapters on communications and Menzies and nuclear policy, he wasn't always the instigator but certainly the perpetuator of these ideas. The Royal Australian Regiment became the first permanent Australian infantry regiment, based on British models.

Going back to Kitchener, he recommended compulsory military service, which existed from 1911 to 1929. Menzies reintroduced national service in 1951. During these foundational periods in the ADF, basically every able-bodied male of a certain age experienced that tradition, perpetuating the inculcation of British military history through the Australian military. If you come to Gunning in my village in the southern tablelands of New South Wales, with a population of around 800, we routinely get 300 people turning up for the Anzac Day dawn service. Particularly in the regions, this culture and sense of identity still exist. The Royal Australian Regiment's hat badge motto is "Duty First." If you weren't doing your job, your colleagues would remind you to read your hat badge. You might not think much of symbols like the Melbourne University insignia, but in the military, these are constantly reinforced—they're living institutions in themselves, inculcating a sense you wouldn't find elsewhere.

In the Commonwealth of Nations context, Australia retains the Crown even as republics have been admitted, but the ADF continues to operate within Commonwealth military culture. This includes the ABCA Armies program (American, British, Canadian, Australian), with New Zealand joining later to form ABCANZ, involving regimental exchanges. At Duntroon, my gunnery officer was from the 1st Northumberland Fusiliers, a British regiment. Our artillery regimental officers' basic course was trained by a regimental sergeant major from the Royal Horse Artillery. These exchanges between Australia and the British military continue to this day and are very important. The integration is surprisingly seamless—the main cultural difference is that Aussies tend to rib each other more than the Brits or Kiwis do, aside from a few drill variations.

In terms of British identity in the defence force versus civilian Australia, in civilian life it's largely symbolic and declining. We still see influences like coats of arms in regional towns on prisons and courthouses, but they're not in your face or a lived tradition. In the ADF, these traditions are institutional, daily, and operational. In many ways, I see the ADF as the last redoubt of God, King, and Country. The difference persists because tradition and esprit de corps require continuity—you can't recreate history. If you've ever marched in column to a pipes and drums band playing the same tunes the British marched to in the Seven Years' War in the 1750s, you know how that adrenaline surges. These are tried-and-tested ways of motivating troops, and the same tunes continue today. The regimental system is inherently conservative because tradition is vital. There's also interoperability with UK and Commonwealth partners, extending to the Americans now. But there's a constitutional reality: the King, through the Governor-General, remains the commander-in-chief of the military. Veterans' organisations continue to reinforce that Britishness.

To conclude, the ADF remains one of the most British institutions in contemporary Australia, and loyalty to King and Country—and implicitly God—is not mere ceremony but a living tradition. I'll never forget, in my early days at Duntroon, lessons on various religions where the lecturer asked, "Hands up who doesn't believe in God?" A few raised their hands, and he said, "Well, let me tell you this: when we were caught in an ambush by the Japanese in New Guinea, everybody prayed." Implicitly, God is part of that. There's a saying—the Americans have it—that there are no atheists in foxholes. This identity was consciously preserved through the Menzies era and continues to shape the profession of arms in Australia. In my chapter, I hope to highlight examples of Menzies integrating with and delivering speeches to the RSL—he was a strong supporter. In the military, more than anywhere else in Australian society, this British identity endures.

Just in conclusion, if you look at the black-and-white photographs across the top, that's my great-grandfather. The second photo is before he went overseas, and the ones on either side show him changed substantially after war preparation training. The photo on the far right is him in the Second World War, as he went back for another six years. You can imagine that impact. Underneath are my grandfather, myself, and my son. As I say, it's very difficult to separate the personal from this idea of British identity because, to me, it's just natural. Thank you.

If this is Germany’s post-colonial democracy, bring back Bismarck

Horrid graffiti consisting of zero artistic talent is all over the monument.

The Bismarck Monument stands high above the port and looks down the River Elbe towards the sea. Symbolically, the statue portrays Bismarck as the protector of the city and the German Empire’s maritime ‘gateway to the world’.

The monument was completed in 1906 with some funding provided by Hamburg’s merchants. It was opened by Kaiser Wilhelm II and remains the largest Bismarck monument in the world.

In 2024, a €13 million restoration project, funded by the City of Hamburg and the federal government, was completed to address structural issues caused largely by additional concrete added during the second world war to create an air raid bunker.

Barely a year later, the statue looks disgraceful.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

Michael de Percy is in Germany. He writes about the disgraceful vandalism of a Hamburg monument to Otto von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor who united Germany and founded the Second Reich. Apparently German activists hate him like activists in Australia hate James Cook. Those ignorant bratwurst-eaters should bone up on Bismarck, and the consequences of Wilhelm II dropping him in 1890. Bismarck would have renewed the non-aggression ‘Reinsurance Treaty’ he had with Russia, would have kept Austria-Hungary in check, and would never have antagonised Britain with a naval arms race. Thus, there would have been no World war I, and therefore no Hitler, Nazism and World War II. The world would have been a much better place.

My latest in The Spectator AustraliaIf this is Germany’s post-colonial democracy, bring back Bismarck.

The Battle of Britain: A boy’s dreams and a family’s legacy

My great-grandfather called me ‘Baron’, after the Red Baron, indulging my dreams of becoming a fighter pilot.

July 10 marks the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. While it was far away from Australia, as a lad growing up in 1980s Far North Queensland, my boyhood imagination soared over the skies of 1940 Britain.

The Battle of Britain wasn’t just history to me. It was an obsession. Fuelled by Paul Brickhill’s Reach for the Sky and my hero-worship of Sir Douglas Bader, Airfix models of Hurricanes, Spitfires, Me-109s, and Me-110s filled my bedroom, each plastic kit a tribute to the RAF’s defiance.

Now in my 50s, that fascination endures, reinvigorated by a recently discovered family connection to another wartime theatre and a career that brought me tantalisingly close to my boyhood dream of becoming a fighter pilot.

In the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall wrote:

Today marks 85 years since the Battle of Britain. Michael de Percy writes, ‘The Battle of Britain, fought from July to October 1940, was far from dull. Hitler’s Luftwaffe aimed to crush the RAF, clearing the skies for an invasion of Britain. Outnumbered, the RAF’s pilots in Hurricanes and Spitfires, often barely out of their teens, fought back with ferocity. Churchill’s ‘The Few’ speech captured their sacrifice: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”’

My latest in The Spectator AustraliaThe Battle of Britain: A boy’s dreams and a family’s legacy.

The Menzies Ascendency Book Launch

Michael Kirby, Michael de Percy, and Paul Kelly at King and Wood Mallesons, Sydney

This week I attended the launch of the Robert Menzies Institute volume, The Menzies Ascendency Fortune, Stability, Progress 1954–1961, at a Sydney Institute event held at King and Wood Mallesons in Sydney. Zachary Gorman edited the volume, published by Melbourne University Press.

My chapter in the volume was on Menzies in the Atomic Age.

Australian legends, Michael Kirby and Paul Kelly, were the guest speakers.

I was able to ask a question about governments trying to establish a vision and how this gets in the way of them creating the conditions that enable individuals to thrive. The response is in the video below.

From the bottom of the sea to the moon: Menzies and Australia’s communications golden age

The OTC NASA Satellite Earth Station at Carnarvon, Western Australia


On Sunday 23rd November 2024, I delivered my presentation on Menzies and Australia's communications golden age at the Robert Menzies Institute's Annual Conference. Fittingly, I delivered my presentation online via Zoom from Madrid. The recording of my presentation and the slides are available below.

Abstract

For someone who merely ‘endured’ television, Robert Menzies played a major role in Australia’s communications golden age. Ironically, Menzies oversaw a scientific and technological revolution during his tenure as prime minister that endures. Australia was not only connected with the rest of the world by cables under the sea, but the nation played a major role in landing humans on the moon, a feat of exploration yet to be surpassed. To his critics, Menzies was a ‘pompous, anachronistic, forelock-tugging Establishment figure, who held back the tide of Australia’s potential and denied the country its independent greatness’. But the historical record demonstrates that Menzies was interested in new technologies such as his 1940s personal 16mm home movie camera, and he was eager to support the United States in its quest to win the ‘space race’. Menzies oversaw Australia’s golden age of communication which included the coaxial cable link between Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne, the COMPAC cable that provided a telephone link to Britain and the Commonwealth, and Australia’s membership of the International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium. Ultimately, Menzies’ legacy led to the launch of an Australian satellite from Woomera and helped save the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission. Paul Keating, however, said that this period was ‘the golden age when Australia was injected with a near lethal dose of old-fogeyism by the conservative parties… when they put the country into neutral and where we gently ground to a halt in the nowhere land of the early 1980s’. Nothing could be further from the truth. The portrayal of Menzies (and the Coalition since) as ‘anti-science’ and ‘anti-future’ for political gain denies his rightful place in Australia’s advancement. This paper, then, traces Menzies role in the golden age of communications in Australia and his enduring legacy.

Slides

Portugal’s national identity is forged through individual bravery, not identity politics

Bacalhau (salted cod) is Portugal's national dish and part of its seafaring identity

From Lisbon: Portugal, a seafaring nation, pioneered the Age of Discovery and the exploration of the New World. Synonymous with this period is the individual bravery of the early navigators who battled tough conditions to explore beyond the Pillars of Hercules and to cross the Atlantic. Until recently, Portugal forged a national identity through individual ruggedness in the cod fishing industry in the North Atlantic, and not through the identity politics that is part and parcel of the European Union (EU).

Writing in the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall had this to say:

Speccie favourite Michael de Percy is on holiday in Portugal and has dropped a travel log for us about the state of identity politics in this part of the world with a proud and rich history. ‘Portugal is now another casualty of the EU and all the identity politics and economic hardships that entails…’

My latest in The Spectator AustraliaPortugal’s national identity is forged through individual bravery, not identity politics.

Communist roots to anti-nuclear sentiment in Australia

Doc Evatt's reputation never recovered from his infamous Molotov speech

At the end of the Second World War, the Chifley Labor government became involved in a joint project with Britain to develop nuclear weapons. The fall of Singapore in 1942 ended Australia’s illusion that the Mother Country would always come to our aid. And while thousands of Americans lost their lives defending Australia, conflicts with communists in Malaya, Korea, and Vietnam meant our backyard was not as safe as we thought.

Australia’s flirtation with communism in the post-war era impacted our defence and intelligence capability. Our allies simply did not trust us with details of ‘the bomb’. Attempts by left-leaning, well-meaning pacifists to form a world government to manage nuclear weapons helped the cause of international socialism. The anti-nuclear sentiment that still exists here today has its roots in communism in Australia.

Writing in the Unfiltered newsletter, Alexandra Marshall had this to say:

Political traitors are not new to Australia. Michael de Percy’s article over the weekend brings a timely reminder that the Left have a long history of undermining Australia’s national security to their fellow socialists. As he writes, ‘The Communist Party of Australia helped the Soviet Union by sending British intelligence via the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. Although defeated at a referendum, Menzies’ attempt to ban the Communist Party in Australia was not without justification.’

My latest in The Spectator AustraliaCommunist roots to anti-nuclear sentiment in Australia.

My presentation at the Robert Menzies Institute's Annual Conference

My paper at the Robert Menzies Institute's Annual Conference 2023

The video recording of my presentation is available below:

The Menzies Ascendency: Australia in the Atomic Age

Keith Rigg (R) with Sir Robert Menzies signing a bat, circa 1950 [Rigg Family Album CC BY 3.0]

I will present my final paper for the Robert Menzies Institute's Third Annual Conference, 'The Menzies Ascendency: Implementing a Liberal Agenda and Consolidating Gains, 1954-1961' on Friday 24th November 2023. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the University of Canberra's  Faculty of Business, Government and Law Seminar Series in May 2023.

The slides and abstract from my final presentation are below, along with a podcast episode with Georgina Downer, CEO of the Robert Menzies Institute:

Abstract

Menzies embraced the atomic age rather more enthusiastically than many other Australians. He envisaged Australia’s substantial uranium and thorium reserves providing Australia with a source of clean, reliable, and affordable energy that would ultimately replace fossil fuels. But he also knew that “what is best advertised tends to be more popularly understood”. Despite the opening of a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in 1958 to “test materials for their suitability in use in future power reactors”, the purpose of Australia’s first nuclear reactor was gradually reduced to producing medical radioisotopes and conducting research. Menzies faced similar concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors, the propensity for conflating nuclear industries with nuclear weapons, and storing nuclear waste to those concerns political leaders face today. But with Australia’s strategic defence capabilities enhanced by nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS agreement, and the absence of a ‘Plan B’ for a carbon-neutral future, the unrealised potential of Australia’s atomic age has manifested into the very lack of skills Menzies was concerned about in 1962. The Lucas Heights facility was more than just a case of hubris, or “what are they doing here that can't be better done elsewhere?” It provided opportunities for training Australian scientists and sharing and transferring nuclear-related research and knowledge. At the same time, recently declassified documents suggest that Menzies aimed to develop Australia’s nuclear capability amid eleven years of atomic weapons tests conducted by Britain in Australia. While much has been written about “nuclear colonialism” following the Royal Commission into the tests, very little attention has been given to the unrealised potential of Australia’s nuclear industry envisaged during the atomic age. This paper, then, traces the development and subsequent stagnation of the nuclear industry in Australia, with a focus on Menzies’ legacy and its influence on energy and defence policy today.


Australia in the Atomic Age: Menzies’ legacy and nuclear’s unrealised potential

High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR), Lucas Heights, opened in 1958.

Tomorrow I will present this work in progress for a paper for the Robert Menzies Institute's Third Annual Conference, 'The Menzies Ascendency: Implementing a Liberal Agenda and COnsolidating Gains, 1954-1961'.

The slides and abstract from my work-in-progress presentation are below. 

Slides

Abstract

Menzies embraced the atomic age rather more enthusiastically than many other Australians. He envisaged Australia’s substantial uranium and thorium reserves providing Australia with a source of clean, reliable, and affordable energy that would ultimately replace fossil fuels. But he also knew that “what is best advertised tends to be more popularly understood”. Despite the opening of a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in 1958 to “test materials for their suitability in use in future power reactors”, the purpose of Australia’s first nuclear reactor was gradually reduced to producing medical radioisotopes and conducting research. Menzies faced similar concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors, the propensity for conflating nuclear industries with nuclear weapons, and storing nuclear waste to those concerns political leaders face today. But with Australia’s strategic defence capabilities enhanced by nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS agreement, and the absence of a ‘Plan B’ for a carbon-neutral future, the unrealised potential of Australia’s atomic age has manifested into the very lack of skills Menzies was concerned about in 1962. The Lucas Heights facility was more than just a case of hubris, or “what are they doing here that can't be better done elsewhere?” It provided opportunities for training Australian scientists and sharing and transferring nuclear-related research and knowledge. At the same time, recently declassified documents suggest that Menzies aimed to develop Australia’s nuclear capability amid eleven years of atomic weapons tests conducted by Britain in Australia. While much has been written about “nuclear colonialism” following the Royal Commission into the tests, very little attention has been given to the unrealised potential of Australia’s nuclear industry envisaged during the atomic age. This paper, then, traces the development and subsequent stagnation of the nuclear industry in Australia, with a focus on Menzies’ legacy and its influence on energy and defence policy today.

© 2025 Dr Michael de Percy
made with by templateszoo