This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Charles Lloyd (Australian general) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Hi AC, re. the missing words in the lead, losing "held" was my bad but losing "a number of" was deliberate. I think that phrase and its varations are overused and can generally be trimmed, e.g. "a large number of" ==> "many", "a small number of" ==> "a few", "a number of" ==> "several" or indeed nothing at all, which I think works in this case. Not a show-stopper, but that was my rationale. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he seems to be interesting in his dullness - a major general who as a member of the staff corps and an artillery officer didn't seem to hold any notable commands but became the Army's youngest general (this might particularly puzzle those who don't understand the importance of staff / operations / executive appointments as opposed to command roles). Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed -- Eisenhower is an example of that too I think. I was also interested in how Lloyd seemed to have thought that as a two-star in 1946 he'd gone as far as he could go. Lots of RAAF one- and two-stars were forcibly retired that year but they were WWI vets whom the government decided had reached their use-by dates. Pretty well all the post-WWI-generation air officers that I can think of stuck around at least till the 1950s. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followed the link fighting that followed in the text as follows but it didn't seam to lead to where it was pointed. I guess, what I am saying is that the linked article doesn't sat anything about "Australians units in Java being captured". Not my direct area of knowledge so I thought I would put it out there to set it right one way or the other.
Ultimately while a few Australian units were landed in Java, where they were inevitably captured in the fighting that followed, the bulk of the 6th and 7th Divisions were returned to Australia following pressure from the Australian government.