In April 1946 a Brigadier Brimblecombe wrote a letter to The News in Adelaide. He complained that in the war just ended soldiers drank too much beer and risked enslavement to alcohol.
The press carried stories throughout the war of disturbances in Darwin and elsewhere in the country, inevitably connected to alcohol. The public could be forgiven for thinking drink played too large a role in military life, and the Brigadier’s letter reinforced such perception.
Meet well-spoken ex-Corporal Hedley R. Smith, who had served with the Northern Territory Force. He wrote a dry replique that set the record straight for probably the great majority of those who served.
I had read Smith’s letter before seeing the Brigadier’s own (not reproduced here). I was surprised that even an ex-other ranks would speak of a serving officer as he did, politely yet with a hint of sarcasm.
When I found the Brigadier’s letter the reason became clear, or more clear: Brimblecombe was an officer in the Salvation Army. Nonetheless, it is clear Smith had no animosity as such to the Sally Ann. He simply regarded Brimblecombe’s fulmination as ill-informed and doctrinaire.
The exchange shows nonetheless that alcohol in Australia never enoyed a free pass. A large segment of society considered its use unexceptionable and nothing to apologize for, but that does not mean there was no organized opposition to drink. There was, in numerous quarters, and the Salvation Army provided just one example.
Below is a substantial part of the ex-corporal’s letter. Bear in mind that in Australia, corporals were and are given a form of command responsibility. This means they lead a section of up to a dozen soldiers of private (the lowest) rank. Smith’s letter shows he was well-trained, well-spoken, and surely an exemplary leader
It is easy to see that Brigadier Brimblecombe (“News” 2/4/46) had little or no experience of the Northern Territory during war years. Concerning the noted religious leader who returned from Darwin with a story of blight and demoralisation directly caused by strong drink, all I can say is that he must have had a very vague idea of what actually took place. Does he realise that the official ration in the early part of the war was one bottle per man, per week, perhaps . . . with the emphasis on the “perhaps”? Up to last August the ration over the latter 18 months had been increased to two bottles per man per week, while on convoy the ration was one-third bottle per man per day, and what is more, the non drinkers could not augment their quota to their mates, as the queue system was in operation and one opened bottle was handed out to every third man . . . money in advance. As for the troops becoming alcoholic slaves, it reflects even more on the brigadier’s ignorance of the potency of beer, if he honestly believes that a man, after travelling about 200 miles, packed 21 to a truck, with a slice of bully beef and half a pear for dinner, follows it up at the end of the day’s journey with the terrific amount of one-third bottle of beer, and thus becomes an alcoholic slave. Maybe Brigadier Brimblecombe should ask for some first-hand information from his Darwin representatives, Majors Walters and Jones, who night after night openly stated what a fine bunch of lads they were in contact with in the north.