This year the students will visit ANZAC Cove in Gallipoli as well as the World War 1 battlefields of the Wester Front in northern France and Belgium, including Villers Bretonneux, Le Hamel, Menin Gate and Ypres, where thousands of Australian soldiers lost their lives.
It is fitting, indeed important, that historians review and reassess the
judgements and opinions formed in the past. Some events are of such national
significance that to do so is to risk the outrage of the general public
and organisations which for various reasons are inextricably linked to the
traditional views of such events.
Australia’s experiences of Gallipoli and the prominent place it has
in our culture mark it clearly as such an event. With a growing national
maturity comes a robust capacity for reflection, the capacity to critically
review our past and by this to gain a deeper insight into our growth as
a nation and better understanding of our national psyche. The capacity to
review our history and hold the accepted wisdom to account is an important
demonstration of this maturity.
The Macquarie dictionary tells us that a legend is a “traditional story handed down from earlier times and accepted as historical”. Perhaps a more popular interpretation would be an “event that is of such extraordinary nature that it stands out even from other significant events”. Both these views defining “legend” are worthy of consideration.
What then of illusion? The Macquarie dictionary indicates this is “something
that deceives by producing a false impression”, succinct and useful
for our purposes.
In exploring the legendary or illusory status of our Gallipoli experience
we need to identify the key aspects of this legend, a matter open to much
debate. The main aspects of the legend to be considered are the characteristics
of the ANZAC which have become accepted in our culture, an adept warrior
who is courageous, stoic, with a laconic sense of humour and a touch of
the larrikin about him, all of which is sustained by a profound mateship
forged in conflict.
The origins of the legend are of particular importance if we are to assess
the status of Gallipoli as legend or illusion. In establishing the origins
and status of the ANZAC legend, it becomes apparent that a comparison of
national experience in the Gallipoli campaign helps us understand the evolution
of the Australian perspective.
Australians all too easily overlook the involvement of Britain and France
in this campaign and sit uneasily when confronted with the fact that we
were involved in the invasion of Turkey.
A quick review of the numbers killed in the campaign give us some sense
of our overall significance. Estimates indicate the Turks had 86 000 killed,
the British 32 000, the French 10,000, the Australians 8,000 and the New
Zealanders 2,500.
Why is it that this campaign is of greatest import to those who made the
smallest contribution?
Of course per capita comparisons by nation would help us identify the relative
impact upon each nation involved. This consideration quickly allows us to
recognise that Australia’s involvement was more significant to Australia
than was Britain’s involvement to Britain. These sorts of comparisons
become critical in developing our understanding of the significance of what
in reality was a bit of a sideshow in the overall scheme of events at this
time.
Was the performance of Australian soldiers of such extraordinary nature
that it stood out from other similar events or have we been deceived?
To understand this issue a continued comparison to Britain’s experience
will help us, as does comparison to the previous experiences of Australia
and subsequent experience of Australia on the Western Front.
How does the Gallipoli experience for Australia compare to previous experiences?
Even if we ignore the fact that at the time of the Maori Wars, The Sudan
Expedition, The Boxer Rebellion and the Boer, War that Australia was not
a nation, we quickly recognise that the scale and nature of operations was
vastly different to those of Gallipoli.
Gallipoli was a stage of far greater proportions than those previously
experienced by Australians, a stage drawing greater media attention and
giving the soldiers greater opportunity to gain recognition for their actions.
This is not to imply criticism of the veterans of Australia’s previous
military operations, simply a claim that the greater scale and character
of the Gallipoli experiences brought greater recognition for those involved.
Clearly the Australian experience of Gallipoli was extraordinary and does
stand out when compared to her other military experiences.
Is the claim of greater scale and a more intense type of warfare attributed
to Gallipoli when compared to the other military experiences of Australia
a matter of deceit, and therefore illusion? The weight of historic wisdom
would suggest not. In this context the claim of legendary status for Gallipoli
is appropriate and that of illusion remains unconvincing.
The specific characteristics associated with the Gallipoli legend are rarely
in dispute. A brief survey of the Gallipoli experience supports this view.
The quality of the Australian soldier was demonstrated from the first moment
of the Gallipoli landings, where with courage and initiative, they fought
their way to the high ground overlooking the Dardanelles against a determined
and well prepared foe.
The calibre of the ANZAC was demonstrated repeatedly over the ensuing months.
Perhaps most conspicuously during the battle of Sari Bair that included
such actions as the battle of Lone Pine and the charge at the Nek. This
experience highlighted in an astounding way the astuteness of the Australian
soldier, his courage and stoic nature.
The significance of mateship to the soldiers is repeatedly referred to
in their
correspondence. The repeated and sustained demonstration of the Australian
capacity as a soldier, the courage, stoicism and sense of humour and the
mateship which was the foundation of his performance is demonstrable and
worthy of the epithet of legendary.
Why then does Australia’s experience rate so high in our national
conscience as compared to the British?
We must remember that the Gallipoli campaign was designed to resolve the
stalemate which had evolved in Europe, a stalemate which had seen greater
battles and more serious casualties experienced by the British.
Not only was the Gallipoli campaign one of a number of theatres of war
in which the British were involved at the time, it bears little comparison
in historic significance to the many other conflicts in which the British
people have fought. Battles like Waterloo where during the space of one
day a total of 66,000 casualties and the balance of power in Europe was
decided for a hundred years. One battle in a war of many battles, one conflict
of many conflicts the British people have endured.
A short list of conflicts which illuminate the annals of military history
give some insight into the differing perspective of the British people including
such titles as Agincourt, Crecy, Naisby, Blenheim and Trafalgar to name
a few. Irrespective of the heroism and calibre of the British soldier at
Gallipoli, and there were heroes, the campaign itself does not stand out
as legendary for the British by the criteria identified, there is therefore
no issue of illusion.
Some issues in this matter remain unresolved. What of Australia’s
experience on the Western Front? When one compares the experience of Australians
on the Western Front to that of Gallipoli it becomes evident that the routine
hardships were of similar difficulty, though some have suggested the rest
and rotation system on the Western Front, giving soldiers access to the
benefits of civilisation in the form of leave in the towns and cities of
France, made the hardship more bearable.
In other matters the argument that Australian experiences on the Western
Front were more daunting than those of Gallipoli is sustainable. The bombardment
that was experienced on Pozieres ridge and in Pozieres itself was one of
the most intense of the war. The casualties experienced at Fromelles, 5,
500 in 27 hours, indicate the intensity of conflict when compared to the
estimates of 8,000 for the Gallipoli campaign.
Why then do we place Gallipoli so highly in our heritage? The answer lies
in the chronological developments during World War One. Not only did Gallipoli
occur before the Western Front, there was a lull between the experiences
of Gallipoli and Australian deployment to the Western Front. This circumstance,
linked with the influence of propagandist war correspondents, gave time
for the legend to become established, internalised and cherished by the
Australian people.
The experience of the Western Front was profound and the impact of Australian
soldiers significant in the allied war effort. This didn’t compete
with the ANZAC legend established at Gallipoli which thus demonstrated that
it was pliable enough to embrace and include subsequent achievements by
Australian soldiers as a continuation of the legend.
This arguably is the strength of the Gallipoli experience and the ANZAC
legend established there. It is a legend inclusive of subsequent generations,
a legend which gives strength to those who serve now, a legend to which
they will add.
There is no illusion; Gallipoli is a legend to be proud of.
The 2006 ANZAC Student tour will, in addition to Gallipoli, visit the battlefields of the Western Front, where more thousands of Australians died in the First World War.
The 14 Western Australian school students will attend ANZAC commemorations
in northern France and Belgium visiting Villers Bretonneux, Le Hamel, Menin
Gate and Ypres.
The ANZAC Legend was born in the experiences of the Australian soldiers
at Gallipoli, but it was our involvement in the battles on the Western Front
where Australians fought alongside soldiers from numerous allied nations
that really exposed this spirit to a wider audience.
After the December 1915 withdrawal from Gallipoli, the AIF was reformed
and reinforced with more men from home, swelling the numbers from two divisions
to five. They arrived in France in March 1916 and joined the Allied forces
on the Western Front, in a series of trenches that extended from Belgium
to north east France and the Swiss border.
In order to recapture the territory gained by the Axis powers, the Allies
first unleashed heavy artillery bombardments in an attempt to destroy the
enemy’s defences before waves of infantry emerged from the trenches
and attempted to cross ‘no-man’s land’ and take the enemy
trenches, thus advancing the line forward.
The first experience for the AIF was at Fromelles in July 1916, which resulted
in 5533 Australian casualties in 24 hours. By the end of 1916, over 42 000
Australians had been killed or wounded on the Western Front.
The following year, 1917 continued in much the same vein. At locations
along the Western Front; Bullecourt in France and Messines and Passchendaele
near the Menin Road in Belgium, Australian soldiers were often sent ‘over
the top’ as front line troops. Trench warfare was merciless. In 1917
Australia suffered 76,836 casualties.
The last major German offensive was launched in March 1918. The objective
of the German high command was to recapture Amiens and the Somme region.
On 24 April 1918, Australian troops recaptured Villers Bretonneux in an
unconventional night attack. In recognition, Anzac Day ceremonies are held
annually in Villers Bretonneux on this date and the 2006 tour will be present
for this service.
The task of recapturing Hamel, a strategically located town in the Somme
valley, was assigned to Lieutenant General John Monash. On 4 July, Monash
launched an infantry attack, supported by tanks and artillery which resulted
in victory within two hours. This campaign also saw the first use of American
infantry troops.
Both Hamel and Villers Bretonneux served as launching points for the attack
on Amiens on 8 August 1918. The Australians played a critical role in this
campaign which saw the Allies liberate 116 towns and capture over 29,000
prisoners. Lieutenant General Monash continued to push towards the Somme
River and the German line of defence.
On 31 August, the Australian 2nd Division, including battalions from all
states, crossed the Somme and attacked the strategic position of Mont St
Quentin. Their subsequent victory led the Germans to retreat behind their
last line of defence, the Hindenburg Line.
Australian troops were crucial in the collapse of the German defence including
Bellecourt and Montbrehain; however the costs were high with 27,000 men
killed or wounded in the final three months and 11 of 60 battalions disbanded
due to heavy losses.
References
http://www.awm.gov.au
Robert Darlington, Land of Hopes and Illusions, Longman, 1987, Australia