ANZAC

[DrB]

Books by the dozens and countless references in general history books refer to the ANZACs in glowing terms.

I would not suggest an attack on their fighting prowess or reputations, but rather a question, the answer for which has eluded me, despite my readings.

Has there ever been any mention of ill feelings, antagonism, dislike or superiority, for that matter, when comparing the Aussies and New Zealanders? I cannot help but think, knowing man's nature, to elevate himself above the "also rans" when comparing his regiment, unit, what-have-you, with other like units.

I.E.....did the Oz folks and the Kiwis like or tolerate each other. If not, when and why?

Thanks for your comments in advance.

DrB

[Ozzie]

I've never come across any ill feeling between the Kiwi's and Aust. during the war. It was more like they were our cousins and the Aussies would prefer to be with the Kiwis than any others. There may have been individual personality clashes, but not in the overall armies.

Cheers

Kim

[aconnolly]

I agree with Kim, apart form the odd bit of rivalry (a fight over some "professional ladies" in Cairo as an example) the Anzac spirit was forged in 1915 and never ended. No record - official or personal - that I have seen refers to problems.

Even in 1914 when the NZEF troopships stopped in Australia, the reception was incredible, so the spirit between the two countries was formed early.

Andrew

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

I've got to agree also I ve no mention of any major disturbance between the two during the war.

If fact the records show if a kiwi gets into trouble an aussie would be soon there to help him out even when that ment a lot of trouble such as Suderfund in 1918 when NZ soldiers went into a native village after the death of one of there number, the aussies joined in.

I also found when ever I called into the NZ Base outside Vitez in Bosnia found our Kiwi mates very frendly even when watching the Rugby.

Cheers

S.B

[armourersergeant]

It was probably that the New Zealanders knew they were the betters and were thus happy to let the Aussies think they were

Much like my wife lets me think I wear the trousers

Arm

[Ozzie]

Arm, Your laughing too much, mate. Your finger kept hitting the enter key.

Doc, The Aussies and the Kiwis had a lot in common with each other and were very much brothers in arms. This has been maintained, as Steve pointed out, ever since WW1. It is probably a fairly unique relationship as I don't know of any other two countrys armies with the same bond, attitude and way of doing things.

It may have something to do with living under the Southern Cross, being colonials, and forming our own armies, with similiar ideals and rules.

Cheers

Kim

[armourersergeant]

Oops!

[bluedog]

Pals

All I can say is thatif an Aussie and a Kiwi are having a punch up

dont interfere because we will both turn on you.

Regards

peter

[BeppoSapone]

Pals

All I can say is thatif an Aussie and a Kiwi are having a punch up

dont interfere because we will both turn on you.

Regards

peter

Yes, they stick together in 'Pomland' & it is sometimes hard for us to tell them apart.

This does not really matter, unless you are a sheep

[Captain Dave]

Christopher Pugsleys Book, The ANZAC Experience gives a very good comparison in the first 2 chapters. Essentialy Austraia and NZ have always seen their militarys in differnt ways and Australia during WW1 almost diverted the NZ troops to South Africa (en route to Egypt) to put down an uprising, with the assumption that their own troops would be better employed in the main theatre.

During the Gallipoli Campaign, the Australains considered themselves superior to other allied soldiers, and considered the NZ troops to be too english.

At the completion of the Gallipoli Campaign, the Australian Forces expanded, leaving NZ having to form a third Bde to make a NZ Division before deploying to France.

Australia and NZ have always been lumped together, but Australia will always leave the poor brother behind where they can, unless it suits their needs to retain them.

'Read pugsleys book, he gives a better spin on it than I.

[Ozzie]

Strange, All the letters from Gallipoli I have read by Aussie soldiers, praised the NZ's highly, welcomed them and were grateful that they were there. This is also the case on the Western front. I am not talking politically, more of the men themselves. If we seperate the politics from the men, we may get a different view to the above????

Cheers

Kim

[Andrew P]

New Zealand troops stopped off in Western Australia in two world wars on their way to the Mid East & Europe but I haven't found any cases of any major antagonism between the soldiers of the two nations.

I believe the only trouble that the Kiwis caused here was in WW2 when the New Zealanders got into a large scale fight with members of the US Navy outside some of the local hotels.

Agree Kim. I think Dave is being a bit harsh in his comment that 'Australia will always leave the poor brother behind where they can, unless it suits their needs to retain them.'

[aconnolly]

Sorry Captain Dave, I have to go with the cousins on this one. I've read Pugsley, and many others. Whilst Pugsley is a wonderful historian, I don't think there is much to back his stance, at least not where the rank and file were concerned.

With respect to the formation of a 3rd Brigade to form a full Division, by early 1916 there were thousands of "unattached" New Zealanders in Egypt, the only realistic thing to do with them was form a 3rd Brigade. I don't think it was anything to do with being left high and dry by the Australians.

Granted, as Pugsley says in chpt 1 of his Anzac Experience, NZ has often struggled to be recognised in "Anzac", I think this is more a reflection on post-war education than on the attitudes of the men who served.

With regard to WW2, the Yanks were not safe on this side of the Tasman either - a few good battles are recorded! Most to do with money and girls.

Andrew

[Bob Doneley]

It's often been said that a well-balanced Kiwi is one with a chip on both shoulders... :-)

Having said that rather cheekily, there are some subtle differences between Kiwis and diggers. Lt Col Malone, of Quinn's Post fame, had a very poor opinion of Australians, even threatening to charge some Australian commanders with cowardice in the first few days on Gallipoli. He was disgusted by the conditions at Quinn's and transformed it by sheer hard work. Capt Charle Upham VC & bar, in his last years, once told a visiting Australian officer that he had never met an Australian who wasn't a thief. Pugsley is rarely complimentary to Australians in his books (even though his Gallipoli book wrongly labels a photo of dead Australians as dead Kiwis).

Perhaps this attitude of Kiwis to Australians was best summed up by my old RSM, who commented that a visiting Kiwi rifle company was 'more Pommy than the Poms'!

But when you read through the letters of Australians where Kiwis are mentioned, it is invariably complimentary; one writer went as far to say that New Zealanders were better soldiers than the Australians.

I certainly know that the Australians I knew in the '80's who served with Kiwis in Vietnam held them in very high regard.

But I agree with the comment that you shouldn't intervene in a blue between a Kiwi and an Australian, unless you want both of them having a go at you.

But we want the Bledisloe Cup back this year!

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

You find that a number of Kiwi commanders do at times have made remarks about the aussie counterpats.

During the fighting at Ammen 27th to 30th March 1918, the NZMB with an attached 4th Anzac Camel Bn made a night attack on hill 3039 30th March 1918.

This attack went well and gained three lines of Turkish defences, which were held untill morning when during a Turkish attack the front line of NZ troops retired without orders abandoning their defences allowing the Turks to retake part of the hill, only a quick counter attack by NZ and Camel soldiers retook the hill and held it all day.

Now the NZMB blamed the Camel Bn for the retreat, saying that they had retired first, what was over looked by these with that veiw was the camel company holding the line with the NZMB was the 16th NZ Company Camel Corps not any of the three aussie companies in the Bn.

I think there will always be those quick to blame others, like we (aussies) do against a number of British and Yank Generals and others insteed of looking closer to home.

Cheers

S.B

[AndyMacdonald]

I'm in the unique postion - presumably - of having read nearly every NZ WW1 diary held on the public record and transcriped the vast bulk of the same. Having said this, I believe NZ & Aussies generally - as stated by other threaders above - worked together well in the line and out of it fostered a brotherly rivalry. Disputes, fights etc were invariably situational and in most cases linked to alcohol. As far as rating one nation ahead of the other - it's a brave person who treads that path. Certainly the kiwis were few and generally quieter than the Aussies (hence the title 'The Silent Division), but they nonetheless shared a 'frontier' mentality despite inherently different origins. That emphasis still continues today. It would be fair, also, to say that at least NZ troops had a very good opinion of Scottish troops and even Guards units, although they were sceptical of the same for several reasons (mindless discipline and class structure). It's interesting to note that nowadays the South Africans are trying to muscle in on the Anzac legend and sobriquet that was born on the Gallipoli slopes. Apparently 'we colonials', the argument goes, are all the same boat and should therefore stick together. Wrong. South African soldiers - while I have no bent against them - were not and never will be part of the Anzac legend. Give me an Aussie any day.

Andy M

[Ozzie]

I hadn't heard of the SA's wanting to be part of the legend of The Australian and New Zealand Army Corp, also known as Kiwis and Aussies or diggers.

If that is what they are trying to do, they are pushing it!

Cheers

Kim

[Andrew P]

I hadn't heard of the SA's wanting to be part of the legend of The Australian and New Zealand Army Corp, also known as Kiwis and Aussies or diggers.

If that is what they are trying to do, they are pushing it!

Cheers

Kim

The Saanzacs?

It would be strange to lump the South Africans in with the Anzacs, particularly as they have their own battle tradtions forged at places like Delville Wood.

Did the South African Brigade as part of the 9th Division ever fight in a battle next to Australian or New Zealand soldiers on the Western Front? Third Ypres perhaps?

Regards

Andrew

[armourersergeant]

Perhaps Britain could get in on it?

The britsaanzacs

[AndyMacdonald]

Perhaps Britain could get in on it?

The britsaanzacs

Yes, perhaps...

[Ozzie]

No, seeing we are supposed to be the pushy ones, it would be Anzacbrits.

No, sounds to much like a breakfast cereal.

Seriously, I would have thought South Africa had enough history of their own, as Andrew pointed out.

Anzac is often looked at as a sacred word here.

Cheers

Kim

[Guest f@man]

I can recall reading some years ago that, initially at Gallipoli, the kiwi officers thought that the Australian soldiers were an ill- disciplined rabble due to their lack of respect for authority.

Once their fighting ability had been established, apparently this was no longer an issue.

Cannot recall the book so I am paraphrasing but I think I am correct in this.

Colin

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

The British also had the same opition about aussie soldiers.

They miss the point that most aussies when off duty quickly revert to civys that once were, and quickly relax and enjoy themselves often to there discredit.

But we are not the only soldiers to do this, aussie's where known for being a tourist in uniform.

Cheers

S.B

[Guest f@man]

Laconic is the way they were described.

I sometimes wonder if we still are .

Colin

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

Yes we still are, having done that a few times when in countries like Bosnia I took a week off and drove to Rome.

While stationed in the UK when we had a week off and drove from London to Hamburg and the Fuda gap as well as visting Holland and the Battlefields of Northern France including a trip down to Paris in five days.

Yes work is work but when off duty we took advantage of the free trip to these countries the Govt gave us.

Other mates in Bosnia took off to the Greek Islands for their break.

Cheers

S,B