DGZ 6

The Emu War was an Australian military operation to get rid of emus all across western Australia. Due to a particularly bad drought, a large migration of emus made their way to water, and they found refuge in Campion. This was an issue for the farmers of the area, as emus could "break their fences and ruin their crops"("Emu War", 4).The combination of a large number of emus and inexperienced farmers resulted in the Australian military arriving in Campion with the intention of eradication. Though it may seem extreme to kill thousands of emus, according to the Minister of Defense Sir George Pearce, "those who were not familiar with country in which emus were numerous could not realise the damage that the birds could do"(The Argus, 19 Nov. 1932). Emus would trample over everything in their vicinity and leave holes in the fences, which meant that "other animals, such as rabbits or dingoes, could get in and wreak further havoc"("Emu War", 4) on the crops. This left already inexperienced farmers at a loss for preventative action, and so they turned to military action.

When the Royal Australian Artillery arrived, they were under the assumption that they would be able to win somewhat easily. When they tried to shoot down the emus, the birds reacted by “scattering in all directions”(“The Emu War of 1932”, 8), and made it difficult to shoot them down. It's important to keep in mind that emus can incredibly fast, with "speeds reaching up to 31 mph"("Emu", 3). This made them incredibly difficult to target when they weren't moving slowly as a flock. Further attempts also failed, as emus were able to “face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks”(“Looking Back”,7), and in order to shoot down one emu, they had to use "10 rounds"("Emu War", 12) of ammunition. Instead of fighting the emus, they sprung for bounties and a "£52,000 emu-proof fence."(The Argus, 5 Jul. 1953) giving the emus the win in the great emu war of 1932.

This source was found while an intern for the Trove was organizing old issues of the newspaper. This issue was lost to the world as there was a large fire in the printing press, burning all copies of the newspaper that were meant to go out. This copy survived as the wife of the printing press manager liked reading the newspaper issues before the rest of the town, and her husband stowed an extra copy for her before they were officially passed out the next day. A fire came and burned down large portions of the papers at the printing press, including all editions of the Sunday Herald due to be released. This left her with the only known copy of the December 18th, 1932 edition. When she passed away, her grandson donated her large collection of vintage editions of the Sunday Herald to the Trove, hoping they'd be able to scan them and post them online. It was then that this seemingly missing edition of the Sunday Herald resurfaced, and was able to offer an extra piece of context for the readers. Recovered in 2020, this source was verified as credible, since it was from the refutable newspaper, the Sunday Herald. It also provided the missing newspaper article that had been missing for decades in the archives of the Herald. The archive held the papers for the 11th and the 25th, but lost this edition, which was published on December 18th.

Since the public never knew about this article, they never knew that the weaponry used was faulty. Perhaps if they knew the reason they were losing the war was because their weapons weren't working as it was supposed to, some morale would've been boosted within the public. It's reasonable to say that perhaps they would've advocated more for fighting the emus with functioning machinery, rather than opting for the enforced fence that they went with.

The Emu War  is viewed as a funny story detailing the Australian loss against the emus.  In 1932, a severe drought caused an abnormally large immigration of emus across Western Australia. These emus damaged crops and fences, and enabled other animals to do the same. This led to the Australian military getting involved in an eradication attempt to get rid of emus by shooting them all down. However, this didn’t go as expected, as the emus were surprisingly resilient, and relatively difficult to shoot down. Defeated, the resolution was put in place to install better barriers to keep the emus out, rather than kill them. The world laughed at the fact that the Australian army was defeated by mere birds, but was that all there was to the case, or was there something more? A newly unveiled document suggests that perhaps the situation was much more difficult than initially expected. A previously missing newspaper article implies that there were issues with the guns being used to shoot down the emus, and that the Australian army wasn’t able to properly address the emus due to these malfunctions.The revelation that the weapons used against the emus were faulty is significant to the understanding of the emu war, as it demonstrates how the Australians were so easily defeated by the birds despite all logical reasoning.

The Emu War was an Australian military operation to get rid of emus all across western Australia. Due to a particularly bad drought, a large migration of emus made their way to water, and they found refuge in Campion. This was an issue for the farmers of the area, as emus could "break their fences and ruin their crops"("Emu War", 4).The combination of a large number of emus and inexperienced farmers resulted in the Australian military arriving in Campion with the intention of eradication. Though it may seem extreme to kill thousands of emus, according to the Minister of Defense Sir George Pearce, "those who were not familiar with country in which emus were numerous could not realise the damage that the birds could do"(The Argus, 19 Nov. 1932). Emus would trample over everything in their vicinity and leave holes in the fences, which meant that "other animals, such as rabbits or dingoes, could get in and wreak further havoc"("Emu War", 4) on the crops. This left already inexperienced farmers at a loss for preventative action, and so they turned to military action.

When the Royal Australian Artillery arrived, they were under the assumption that they would be able to win somewhat easily. When they tried to shoot down the emus, the birds reacted by “scattering in all directions”(“The Emu War of 1932”, 8), and made it difficult to shoot them down. It's important to keep in mind that emus can incredibly fast, with "speeds reaching up to 31 mph"("Emu", 3). This made them incredibly difficult to target when they weren't moving slowly as a flock. Further attempts also failed, as emus were able to “face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks”(“Looking Back”, 7), and in order to shoot down one emu, they had to use "10 rounds"("Emu War", 12) of ammunition. Instead of fighting the emus, they sprung for bounties and a "£52,000 emu-proof fence."(The Sunday Herald, 5 Jul. 1953) giving the emus the win in the great emu war of 1932.

The impact of the Emu War is still felt today, with many viewing it as a laughable attempt to fight the formidable emu. The direct impact of the altercation painted Australia in such a negative light that most of the sources that depict the war imply that they were only able to take down a couple hundred emus before eventually giving up. This however wasn't the case, and "57,034 emus were killed over the course of six months in 1934"("How Australia lost a war with emus", 17) . This number only increased as a bounty was placed on the emu, which resulted in "284,700 killed"("How Australia lost a war with emus", 18). Despite the success in killing emus through the usage of bounties, the Australian government decided to spring for a more peaceful "£52,000 emu-proof fence."(The Sunday Herald, 5 Jul. 1953) giving the emus the win in the great emu war of 1932.

But did they deserve that win? For nearly a century the agreed upon consensus was that humanity lost the war by underestimating their bird opponents, and by not properly taking the efforts required to fight. However, newly uncovered evidence may suggest a different story.

This source was found while an intern for the Trove was organizing old issues of the newspaper. This issue was lost to the world as there was a large fire in the printing press, burning all copies of the newspaper that were meant to go out. This copy survived as the wife of the printing press manager liked reading the newspaper issues before the rest of the town, and her husband stowed an extra copy for her before they were officially passed out the next day. A fire came and burned down large portions of the papers at the printing press, including all editions of the Sunday Herald due to be released. This left her with the only known copy of the December 18th, 1932 edition. When she passed away, her grandson donated her large collection of vintage editions of the Sunday Herald to the Trove, hoping they'd be able to scan them and post them online. It was then that this seemingly missing edition of the Sunday Herald resurfaced, and was able to offer an extra piece of context for the readers. Recovered in 2020, this source was verified as credible, since it was from the reputable newspaper, the Sunday Herald. It also provided the missing newspaper article that had been missing for decades in the archives of the Herald. The archive held the papers for the 11th and the 25th, but lost this edition, which was published on December 18th. 

Though uncovering seemingly lost documents from attics and seemingly irrelevant storage places, it’s not entirely uncommon. The Sussex declaration is a copy of the Declaration of Independence, discovered in 2017. Two Harvard University researchers found the “parchment manuscript in a records office in Sussex County, England”("Second Copy of Declaration of Independence Discovered", 5), and it was found over 200 years after its publication. In a similar manner, this unnamed intern’s grandma believed in preserving the newspaper editions that she received, allowing the article to be recovered in legible conditions. 

This newspaper was written by a special correspondent, assumed to be the same, unnamed correspondent that wrote the follow up article in 1935. The article is incredibly significant as the publication could’ve changed the course of the entire war. For nearly a century, the entire world was under the impression that the war was lost due to hubris, and the humiliating defeat certainly made Australia the laughingstock of the world. This article showed that it wasn’t in fact the military’s fault, but rather the fault of the weapons that they were using. Major G.P.W Meredith claimed that the guns“ don’t send out ammunition nearly as far as it should go, nor does it go as fast as it should”(Troubling Update, 4), while the general public was under the belief that the guns were working and that there was something wrong with the military forces. Had they known, it’s possible that the outcome of the war would’ve been different. For example, the public could have petitioned for better weapons, especially the farmers whose crops were being attacked regularly by emus. Perhaps more members of the artillery would’ve arrived to bring new equipment, or to test the current equipment and verify that it wasn’t working as it should’ve been. There’s many what if’s that are posed with the introduction of this article into the conversation, but one thing is for certain: that the war would have a completely different effect on the world if this was known about.