How Did Australia Lose a War to Birds? The Great Emu War of 1932When Machine Guns Met Evolution (Spoiler: Evolution Won)

Watch the full video on our YouTube channel: Click here

Quick question:

 If a modern military with trained soldiers and machine guns went to war against 20,000 large birds, who would win?

You'd think the answer is obvious. 

You'd be wrong.

In 1932, the Australian government deployed military forces armed with Lewis machine guns the same weapons used in World War 1 to deal with an emu problem in Western Australia.

They fired approximately 10,000 rounds of ammunition over the course of several weeks.

Final casualty count:

About 1,000 emus killed out of 20,000.That's a 95% survival rate for the emus and a 100% humiliation rate for the Australian military.

This is the true story of the Great Emu War of 1932, one of the most embarrassing military defeats in modern history, and a masterclass in why superior firepower doesn't always guarantee victory.

The Setup:

How Australia Ended Up Fighting Birds

The Great Depression Hits AustraliaTo understand how a developed nation with a professional military ends up at war with wildlife, we need to start with the global economic collapse of 1929.

The Great Depression didn't just devastate America it crushed economies worldwide. Australia's export-dependent economy was hit particularly hard. Unemployment skyrocketed. Banks failed. Families lost everything.In the middle of this economic catastrophe, the Australian government had a problem:

Thousands of World War I veterans who'd been promised land as payment for their service.

The Soldier Settlement Scheme:

After World War 1, Australia established the Soldier Settlement Scheme. Veterans were given plots of land in Western Australia with the promise that they could build farms and make a living growing wheat.It sounded good on paper. In reality, these men were:

• Given marginal land that was barely suitable for agriculture
• Expected to clear it themselves
• Provided minimal financial support
• Thrown into farming with little agricultural experience

But these were tough men who'd survived the Western Front. They cleared land. They planted wheat. They worked themselves to exhaustion. And by 1932, after years of backbreaking labor, they finally had successful crops ready to harvest.

Then 20,000 emus showed up.

The Emu Problem: 

When Wildlife Meets Agriculture What Is an Emu?

For those unfamiliar with Australia's second-largest bird (after the ostrich), here are the specs:

Physical Characteristics:

• Height: Up to 6.5 feet tall
• Weight: 80-130 pounds
• Top speed: 30 miles per hour
• Vision: Nearly 360-degree field of view
• Defense: Powerful legs that can kill with a single kick
• Durability: Thick skin and dense feathers that provide natural protection

Behavioral Traits:

• Highly mobile and nomadic
• Excellent eyesight and hearing
• Natural wariness of threats
• Tendency to scatter when attacked
• Can survive injuries that would kill other animals

Emus are built for survival in the harsh Australian outback. They're not aggressive toward humans, but they're extremely effective at avoiding danger and finding food.

The Migration:

Emus are naturally nomadic. They migrate seasonally in search of water and food. In normal years, this migration flows through less populated areas.

1932 was not a normal year:

A particularly harsh dry season in the interior pushed approximately 20,000 emus westward toward the coast directly through the wheat belt where the soldier-settlers had their farms.To an emu, a wheat field looks like an all-you-can-eat buffet. And emus are not polite eaters.

What the emus did:

• Trampled crops while moving through fields
• Consumed massive amounts of wheat
• Damaged fences, allowing rabbits in (creating a secondary problem)
• Destroyed months of labor in days

For farmers already struggling through the Great Depression, this was catastrophic. Their entire year's income—their only source of money—was being destroyed by birds.

The Military Solution: 

When Politicians Make Wildlife DecisionsThe Farmers' Plea.

The desperate farmers did what people do when facing disaster.they asked the government for help.

Their request was simple: Send help to protect the crops. Some form of organized culling. Financial assistance. Anything.

The government's response was... creative.

Sir George Pearce, the Minister of Defence, decided this was a military matter.

His reasoning:

1. The farmers were veterans—the military should help them
2. The soldiers could use it as target practice
3. The emu meat and skins could be used
4. It would be good public relations

What could possibly go wrong?

The Deployment:

In October 1932, the Australian military deployed to Western Australia under the command of Major G.P.W. Meredith of the 7th Heavy Battery of the Royal Australian Artillery.

The force consisted of:

• Two soldiers with military training
• Two Lewis guns (machine guns used in WWI)
• 10,000 rounds of ammunition
• Complete confidence in their mission

The mission parameters:

• Reduce the emu population significantly
• Protect the wheat crops
• Make this look easy

The soldiers arrived expecting a straightforward operation. They were, after all, trained military personnel with automatic weapons facing birds.

How hard could it be?

The Battle Begins: 

When Confidence Meets Reality First Contact: 

November 2, 1932 The first engagement should have been a massacre. On paper, it was perfectly set up.

The scenario:

• The soldiers spotted a group of approximately 50 emus
• They positioned their Lewis guns for optimal firing angles
• They had clear lines of sight
• The emus were relatively close
• Everything was perfect

What happened:

1. The soldiers opened fire
2. The emus scattered IMMEDIATELY
3. They ran in all directions at 30 miles per hour
4. Within seconds, they'd broken into small groups
5. These groups dispersed across the landscape
6. The soldiers were left firing at rapidly moving targets
7. Very few emus were hit

First day results:

• Hundreds of rounds fired
• Maybe a dozen emus killed
• Soldiers: confused and frustrated
• Emus: regrouping in the distance, alive

The Problem Reveals Itself

The soldiers quickly realized they were dealing with an enemy that didn't behave like enemy soldiers.

What makes emus difficult to kill:

Speed and Mobility: 

Emus can run at 30 mph with sustained endurance. 

They're built for crossing vast distances in the Australian outback. A soldier with a machine gun can't chase them down.

Vision:

Their eyes are positioned on the sides of their heads, giving them nearly 360-degree vision. They can see threats coming from almost any direction. Ambushes are nearly impossible.

Scatter Tactics: 

When threatened, emus instinctively break into small groups and disperse. This isn't learned behavior—it's evolutionary survival strategy. But it happens to be perfect guerrilla warfare tactics.

Durability: 

Multiple soldiers reported hitting emus with bullets and watching them keep running. Their thick skin, dense feathers, and hardy physiology meant that non-fatal hits were common.

Natural Wariness: 

Emus evolved to survive in an environment with dingoes and other predators. They're naturally alert and difficult to approach.

The Truck Strategy: November 4, 1932:

After the first day's failure, Major Meredith decided to change tactics. If the emus were too fast and scattered on foot, they'd use vehicles.

The new plan: 

Mount the Lewis gun on a truck. Chase the emus down. Shoot from the moving vehicle.

What actually happened:

The Australian outback is not a paved highway. It's rough, uneven terrain with rocks, ditches, and vegetation.

The problems:

1. The truck bounced violently over rough ground
2. The gunner couldn't aim while bouncing
3. The truck was too slow to catch emus (they easily outran it)
4. When the truck went fast enough, the gunner couldn't shoot accurately
5. The truck frequently got stuck in soft ground or damaged by rocks
6. The emus learned to avoid the sound of the truck engine

Result: 

Even less effective than shooting on foot.One report described soldiers sitting in a broken-down truck in the middle of nowhere, having fired dozens of rounds without hitting anything, watching emus disappear over the horizon.

The Media Discovers the Story: 

From Mission to Mockery When Reporters Arrived Initially, the military operation was supposed to be a quiet, efficient solution to a farming problem. The plan was: show up, solve the problem, leave, minimal publicity.

Then the press found out.

Australian journalists arrived to cover what they'd been told was a "military operation against wildlife pests." What they found was more entertaining than they could have imagined.

What reporters witnessed:

• Soldiers firing machine guns at birds
• Birds easily evading the gunfire
• Trucks getting stuck chasing emus
• Massive ammunition expenditure with minimal results
• Frustrated soldiers trying to explain why birds were beating them

The newspapers had a field day.

The Headlines:

Australian papers began running increasingly mocking coverage:

"Emus Win First Round" 

"When Do the Emus Get Their Medals?" 

"The Great Emu War: Birds Hold the Line" 

"Feathered Foes Too Fast for Gunners"

Political cartoons showed emus in military uniforms. Some depicted emus receiving medals for bravery. Others showed soldiers surrendering to emus.

The story went international:

British newspapers picked it up. The entire British Empire learned that Australia was losing a war to birds. The humiliation was complete.

Parliamentary Questions Members of the Australian Parliament began asking uncomfortable questions:

"Why is the military shooting at wildlife with machine guns?" 

"How much is this costing?" 

"Why can't trained soldiers hit large birds?" 

"When will this operation end?"

Government officials had to stand before Parliament and explain that, yes, the army was fighting emus, and no, it wasn't going well.

The Scientific Community Weighs In:

Ornithologists scientists who study birds were interviewed for their expert opinions on why the military operation was failing.

Their explanations included:

Dr. Dominic Serventy (prominent ornithologist) noted that emus have:

• Exceptional eyesight evolved for predator detection
• Natural flocking behavior that disperses threats
• Remarkable stamina and speed
• Thick plumage that provides protection from small projectiles

Other scientists pointed out:

• Emus are remarkably hardy birds that can sustain injuries and continue functioning
• Their natural wariness made them nearly impossible to approach
• Their speed and endurance exceeded anything soldiers could match on foot
• The outback terrain favored emus who'd evolved for it

One scientist was quoted saying: 

"The emus are displaying better tactical sense than the military. 

They're using terrain, mobility, and dispersal perfectly."

The implication was clear: The birds were better at warfare than the soldiers.

 The Withdrawal: Admitting DefeatThe Final Numbers

After approximately six weeks of sporadic operations (from early November into December 1932), the military compiled their final report.

Official statistics:

• Rounds of ammunition expended: 9,860
• Emus killed: 986 (official count, likely generous)
• Emus wounded: Unknown but probably significant
• Emus remaining: Approximately 19,000
• Cost per emu killed: Substantial (in ammunition alone)
• Military reputation: Destroyed

That's an average of 10 rounds per emu killed.

For context, modern military operations consider a casualty ratio of 250 rounds per enemy combatant to be inefficient. The emu operation was using 10 rounds per bird, and birds weren't the target of a major military operation they were agricultural pests.

Major Meredith's Report:

In his official report to the Minister of Defence, Major Meredith wrote what has become one of the most famous quotes in military history:

"If we had a military division with the bullet-carrying capacity of these birds, it would face any army in the world... They can face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks."

Read that again. The commanding officer of the operation was praising the enemy's tactical capabilities.The emus.He essentially wrote: "These birds are better soldiers than we are.

The Decision to Withdraw:

In December 1932, the military officially withdrew from Western Australia.The official reason given was: 

"The operation has not achieved its objectives and continued expenditure cannot be justified."The unofficial reality: They'd lost, and everyone knew it.

The emus remained in the wheat belt. The crops continued to be damaged. The military went home. The farmers were back where they started, except now with the added humiliation of knowing that even the army couldn't solve their problem.

Final score: Emus 1, Australia 0. 

Round Two: 

The 1934 Campaign (They Actually Tried Again)The Emus Return:

In 1934, the emus migrated through the wheat belt again. Same problem, same devastation, same desperate farmers.The government turned to the military: "Can you try again?" 

The military's response was immediate and emphatic: "Absolutely not."They'd learned their lesson. The Emu War had taught them that:

1. Military force is not appropriate for wildlife management
2. Emus are surprisingly difficult to kill with machine guns
3. The media will mock you mercilessly
4. Some problems can't be solved with firepower

The Solution That Actually Worked:

Instead of deploying the military, the government implemented a bounty system.

How it worked:

• Pay farmers and hunters a small amount for each emu killed
• Use individual hunters with regular rifles
• Allow patient, sustained hunting rather than military operations
• No time pressure or mission objectives

Why this worked better:

• Hunters used stealth and patience
• They could wait for perfect shots
• They used appropriate weapons (rifles, not machine guns)
• They understood emu behavior
• They weren't embarrassed if it took time
• No media coverage meant no pressure

The bounty system resulted in significantly more emus killed with far less ammunition and zero military humiliation.

Turns out, you don't need the army to hunt birds. You need patience.

What Military Strategists Learned From the Emu WarTaught in Military Academies Yes, really. The Great Emu War is taught in military strategy courses at various institutions around the world.Not as a success story. As a cautionary tale.

The lessons taught:

1. Underestimating the Enemy 

The military assumed that because emus were birds, they'd be easy targets. They didn't study emu behavior, capabilities, or natural defenses. They went in confident and were proven wrong immediately.

Modern application: Always respect your opponent, regardless of appearances.

2. Using Inappropriate Tools:

Machine guns are designed for suppressing enemy positions and firing at massed formations. Emus are neither. The tool didn't match the task.

Modern application: Match your tactics and equipment to the specific challenge.

3. Commitment to Failing Strategy Even after it became clear the initial approach wasn't working, the military continued the same tactics. They doubled down on failure.

Modern application: Adaptability beats stubbornness.

4. Pride Preventing Withdrawal The operation should have ended after the first week. But admitting failure seemed worse than continuing. So they continued, making the eventual failure even more embarrassing.

Modern application: Sometimes retreat is the right strategy.

5. Guerrilla Tactics Beat Superior Firepower The emus accidentally demonstrated perfect guerrilla warfare:

• Small unit dispersal
• Superior knowledge of terrain
• Rapid mobility
• No central command to destroy
• Persistence

Modern application: These tactics work, even without training or planning.

The Evolutionary Advantage:

Here's the profound truth the Emu War revealed:

Evolution had created better soldiers than training had.The emus weren't smart in a cognitive sense. They weren't planning strategy. They didn't have commanders or tactics manuals.But millions of years of evolution had programmed them with survival behaviors that happened to be perfect military tactics:

• Scatter when threatened
• Use speed and mobility
• Know the terrain intimately
• Never cluster in vulnerable groups
• Persistent harassment of threats

The soldiers had training. 

The emus had evolution. Evolution won.

The Legacy: 

How Australia Remembers the Emu War From Humiliation to Humor

Modern Australia has fully embraced the Emu War as part of their national story. Rather than pretending it didn't happen, they've leaned into the absurdity.

How it's remembered:Tourism:

• Historical markers in Western Australia
• Museum exhibits about the Emu War
• Tours of the "battlefield"

Merchandise:

• T-shirts: "Emus: 1, Australia: 0"
• Bumper stickers: "I survived the Emu War (I'm an emu)"
• Postcards showing emus "defeating" soldiers

Popular Culture:

• Books analyzing the campaign
• Documentaries featuring the story
• Podcasts dissecting what went wrong
• Internet memes celebrating emu victory

Educational Use:

• Taught in Australian schools as a humorous historical footnote
• Used in environmental education about wildlife management
• Featured in military history courses worldwide

The Emus Today:

The emus won in 1932. And they're still undefeated.

Current status:

• Emu populations in Australia: Stable and thriving
• Conservation status: Least Concern (common and widespread)
• Relationship with agriculture: Still occasionally problematic
• Military interventions: Zero since 1932

Modern Australia uses:

• Emu-proof fencing
• Sound deterrents
• Habitat management
• Limited, regulated culling when necessary
• Agricultural planning that accounts for emu migration

But never again has Australia sent the military to fight emus.

Could It Happen Again? 

Modern Analysis Could Modern Military Defeat Emus?

This is a question military analysts and wildlife experts occasionally debate (usually humorously).

With modern technology:

• Drones for surveillance (Yes, this would help)
• Thermal imaging (Yes, you could find them easier)
• Better vehicles (Still hard to shoot from moving vehicle)
• More accurate weapons (Still hard to hit fast-moving targets)
• Coordination technology (Doesn't help if targets scatter)

The verdict: Even with 2025 technology, a military operation against 20,000 emus in the Australian outback would be:

1. Extremely expensive
2. Difficult to execute
3. Embarrassing if it failed
4. Completely inappropriate for the problem

The real answer: 

You still don't use the military to manage wildlife. You use wildlife management techniques.

What Changed in Wildlife Management:

The Emu War helped establish principles that guide modern wildlife management:

Modern approaches: 

✅ Habitat modification (make areas less attractive to problem animals) 

✅ Non-lethal deterrents (fencing, sound, light) 

✅ Population control through regulated hunting 

✅ Compensation for farmers affected by wildlife 

✅ Long-term planning rather than crisis response

What doesn't work: 

❌ Military operations against wildlife 

❌ Treating wildlife management as warfare 

❌ Using inappropriate tools for the problem 

❌ Expecting quick, decisive victories over natural systems

By the Numbers: 

The Emu War StatisticsThe Complete Tally:

Australian Military:

• Soldiers deployed: 2-3 (depending on source)
• Machine guns: 2 Lewis guns
• Ammunition: 9,860 rounds
• Operations: November-December 1932
• Casualties inflicted: ~986 emus
• Efficiency rate: 10 rounds per emu
• Cost: Significant (ammunition, personnel, vehicles, fuel)
• Reputation damage: Incalculable
• Result: Withdrew in defeat

Emus:

• Starting population: ~20,000
• Casualties: ~986 (5% of force)
• Tactical adaptations: Immediate and effective
• Territory lost: None
• Operations: Just living their normal lives
• Strategy: Evolutionary instinct
• Result: Victory

Comparison to Other Operations:

• WWI average: 10,000 rounds per enemy casualty
• WWII average: 25,000 rounds per enemy casualty
• Modern warfare: 250,000 rounds per enemy casualty
• Emu War: 10 rounds per casualty (but target was birds, not enemy soldiers)

The Conclusion: 

When Firepower Isn't Enough:

So what do we learn from the Great Emu War of 1932?

The obvious lessons:

• Don't use military force for wildlife management
• Study your enemy before engaging
• Use appropriate tools for the problem
• Pride leads to prolonged failure
• Sometimes retreat is the right strategy

The deeper lessons:

• Evolution creates effective survival strategies
• Superior technology doesn't guarantee victory
• Guerrilla tactics work even without training
• Adaptability matters more than firepower
• Natural systems can defeat artificial systems

The humbling lesson: 

Sometimes, the best-trained soldiers with the best weapons can be defeated by animals that are just trying to eat and survive.The emus didn't win because they were smart. They won because millions of years of evolution had programmed them with perfect survival behaviors that happened to be excellent military tactics.They didn't need to train for guerrilla warfare. They evolved for it.The Australian military learned a lesson that's valuable far beyond emu management: You can have all the guns in the world, but if your enemy is faster, more maneuverable, perfectly adapted to the terrain, and doesn't care about your guns, you're going to lose.

Final score: Emus 1, Australia 0.

And the emus remain undefeated.

Watch the full video breakdown of history's most embarrassing military defeat on YouTube! Click here

Subscribe to our channel for more stories about historical events that sound fake but are 100% real:Click here 

About History's Hot TakesWe make history actually interesting by telling you what really happened—with sarcasm, modern comparisons, and facts you'll actually remember. History without the boring parts or the propaganda.

Follow us:

Website: Click here