Entering World War I

[Martin Bennitt]

Just came across the following in a news agency report from a month ago. Anyone like to discuss it?

cheers Martin B

Australia's naivety in World War I and a self-inflicted plague of toads top the list of worst stuff-ups in the country's history, a new book proclaimed Thursday.

The forced removal of Aboriginal children by the government and church missions during the "stolen generation" of the 1930s to the 1970s also featured among Australia's worst errors of judgment and historical tragedies as detailed in "The Great Mistakes of Australian History".

The book's editor, University of Queensland history lecturer Martin Crotty, said the blunders were picked to teach Australians to avoid future mistakes, Australian Associated Press reported.

Alongside the unintended explosion in cane toads after their introduction to combat beetles in cane crops, the book includes the farming of unfertile land with unreliable rainfall as a major disaster.

However, Crotty said the naive militarism displayed during World War I, which cost Australia 60,000 lives and wounded 150,000 men, was the country's greatest gaffe.

"World War I just cost us so much in so many ways," he said. "It resulted in incredible suffering among the soldiers and it just about tore Australian society apart."

Crotty said the book showed the importance of recognising the bad, as well as the good.

"It is as well to remember that we can completely stuff things up, it's a good lesson in humility."

[andigger]

I must admit a certain level of ignorance in this matter, but did Australia have a choice to join the war or not? As I understand it, once Britain declared war then the Empire was obliged to follow. Andy

[Martin Bennitt]

Although a part of the empire Australia was self-governing and not obliged to follow Britain into the wire. But Britain called on its dominions for assistance and the Australian government felt obliged to support the mother country.

cheers Martin B

[marc leroux]

Although a part of the empire Australia was self-governing and not obliged to follow Britain into the wire.

I do not believe that this correct. I know that Canada was a 'Dominion' and had no control over foreign policy. Once Britain was at war, the Dominions were also at war. They did have a choice on the level of participation i.e. the number of troops that were supplied, but this is different from the above statement.

Canada and Australia used their participation in the Great War as a springboard for becoming independent countries. Both played a roll and were signatories to the peace accord, despite the fact that they had no 'legal' standing for foreign policy.

It is interesting that Austrialia views this a blunder, while Canada views it as the birth of a nation.

marc

[J T Gray]

It is interesting that Austrialia views this a blunder, while Canada views it as the birth of a nation.

I think "...that this Australian views this..." might be a better phrasing.

Adrian

[Martin Bennitt]

I stand to be corrected by those with more knowledge, but if Australia had no choice, what is this bloke on about?

cheers Martin B

[Gibbo]

I think that Australia had no choice but to enter WW1 & that it wasn't until 1931 that the Dominions obtained the right to decide if they entered a war alongside the UK. However, I also think that Australia had a great deal of control over how significant a role she played in the war & by using the phrase 'naive militarism' Martin Crotty could be arguing that Australia could & should have played less of a role in the war rather than that she shouldn't have entered it.

[andigger]

It is interesting that Austrialia views this a blunder, while Canada views it as the birth of a nation.

Newfoundland is probably the only country on the winning side that sees it as the death of a nation.

Andy

[Jack Sheldon]

It would be easy to reply that it is because he is a plonker, but that that would be too sweeping. Having re-read what he wrote, I suspect that the point he is getting at is that Australia could have opted for a less whole-hearted participation in the war. It certainly had no choice about the declaration of war, as has already been pointed out. He may have a point, but I actually feel that he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the close attachment felt by many within the Dominions at the time to Britain and its Empire and a crass disregard for the patriotic and self-sacrificial motivation of volunteers, to whom those values were important manly attributes. They could have stood aside from the fight, but they would have thought less of themselves had they done so.

I await the reaction of those members from Australia who are interested in this subject and would leave you with the thought that in my travels I have frequently come across epitaphs to the fallen of Australia such as He died for the Empire or He gave his life for the Mother Country No cynical Pom-bashing there and I am full of admiration and respect for all those who stepped forward to serve.

Jack

[spike10764]

I would think the war just about tore the societies apart of all the combatants.

In Australia, did it not also go a long way to forming the sense of "Australianness" and develop their independant spirit ?

Actually, Kim has put it better in post 13 below:-

But it gave Australia pride, the beginning of one of the best defence forces in the world, and a place on the world stage.

Edited 22 November , 2006 by spike10764

[manchester terrier]

Found this at The Australian

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20649724-5001986,00.html

But the biggest blunder in Australian history was the naive militarism surrounding World War I, which cost Australia 60,000 lives and wounded 150,000 men, Dr Crotty said.

"World War I just cost us so much in so many ways," he said.

"It resulted in incredible suffering among the soldiers and it just about tore Australian society apart."

Dr Crotty said WWI, specifically the Anzac legend, was remembered as a time where Australians came together "but nothing could be further from the truth" as bitter debates raged over the issue of conscription.

"It turns a horrific event into a story about nation building, about good citizenship, about mateship and about egalitarianism," he said.

While not playing down the importance of Anzac day, he said people needed to be aware of the horrible realities of war to ensure Australians did not "go down the same paths again".

[manchester terrier]

I think these two articles might help explain Dr Crotty's views on Australia and WW1.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2003/534/30493

http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/brisb...ty_history.html

The first article makes parallels between the current war in Iraq and Australias involvement previous wars including WW1.

I hope this is not seen as "off topic" or encouraging debate about current politics. The articles appear to me to give background on Dr Crotty's views.

[Ozzie]

It cost Australia in men, money, and political struggles(conscription). But it gave Australia pride, the beginning of one of the best defence forces in the world, and a place on the world stage.

Kim

[Joan and Terry]

Slightly bemused by the remarks made by Martin Crotty,Great Britain and the Commonwealth were very glad that Australia came to our aid in 1914,we were also glad when they came again in 1939 and yet again when they came to our aid in later conflicts-including the present Iraq war.I await the views of Australians,this could be a very interesting thread.

Joan

[alliekiwi]

I, too, was under the impression that we had virtually no choice to enter WW1. Although, that being said, at the time most Australians and New Zealanders (and Canadians, South Africans &etc?) considered themselves 'British' so they probably had no second thoughts initially about being 'expected' to join in - in with a grin, as it were!

But WW2 - each country declared war individually, as far as I know.

Allie

[Borys]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2003/534/30493

Ahoj!

Checked the first link. He's red scum. Simply ignore the little ****.

Borys

[Bernard_Lewis]

The children of Pozieres would, I am sure, disagree with the author. I recall passing a Pozieres schoolyard with 'Remember Australia' emblazoned on the wall of a building...

Bernard

[ian turner]

I always think this type of statement begs the question in return - What sort of world would Australia (or whichever former colony) think it would have found itself in had it abstained from allied participation, and Germany had won? They may have found themselves handed over to German rule as war reparations, for instance....

Ian

[Auimfo]

There is no doubt that WW1 cost Australia a great deal. A huge amount of money, almost a complete generation gone or permanently scarred and a society at odds with each other over conscription (and I think it fair to say there was an undelying catholic/protestant tone to the conscription debate).

But, taking all this into account, I think Martin Crotty has missed the point completely. He forgets the fact that we were a 'new' nation comprised of a very resilient people and that the sufferings of this period of time, brought far more together than it could ever tear apart. Our nation was really 'born' in 1901, but WW1 was it's coming of age. It was the period of time that defined our character, our future and gave us pride in ourselves on a world stage.

It may seem strange to some, but in a sense the first world war possibly gave more to Australia than we actually lost and the Australians who gave their lives possibly have more to show for their sacrifice than the countless thousands from other nations.

Put simply, I think the vast majority of Australians would disagree with Crotty and believe he is far to insular in his thinking.

Tim L.

[Auimfo]

The great Shelby Foote once made a powerful comment about the American Civil War and it's effects upon that nation and if I be permitted to plagarise and rework it, I think it applies quite nicely to Australia;

Any understanding of this nation has to be based on an understanding of our involvement in the Great War. It defined us. The convict era did what it did. Federation did what what it did. But the Great War defined us as what we are and it opened us to being what we became, good and bad things. And it is very necessary, if you're going to understand the Australian character in the twenty-first century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the twentieth century. It was the crossroads of our being, and it was a hell of a crossroads.

Tim L.

[Dolphin]

I think that Martin Crotty, and perhaps others who view history with the benefit of hindsight, is missing the point that the world looked very different in 1914 than it does now. It's sometimes said that Australia should have stayed out of the Empire's efforts in the War (regardless of the possibility of actually doing so) as there was no direct threat to Australia, nor to Australia's interests; the same logic would apply to New Zealand.

However, in 1914 there was quite a reasonable German presence in the South Pacific, when the northern half of what is now Papua New Guinea was a German colony, as were Samoa and the Caroline Islands. Germany wanted its "place in the sun" as a colonial power, and a German victory in Europe would probably have been followed for demands for more colonies in the Pacific - something not in the interests of the two British Empire nations already there. The idea of a major German presence south of the equator might seem rather far-fetched to us now, but things looked different just over 92 years ago.

Hence, as well as the well known loyalty to the Mother Country, there was a perceived need to safeguard Australia by helping to check the spread of German militarism.

Gareth

[Crunchy]

Responding to calls for an Australian response. This thread follows two points: Crotty's claim that entering the Great War was Australia's biggest blunder and the more interesting point raised by andigger as to whether Australia had a choice in entering the War.

Addressing the second point first will also address Crotty’s claim. Australia was a self governing Commonwealth within the British Empire in 1914 but, as Marc Leroux and Gibbo state, foreign policy for the Dominions was determined in Westminster until the 1930’s. However, this did not automatically mean that Australia was legally bound to enter the War. My reason for this assumption is based on the limitations on the use of the Australian Army at that time and a statement made by the Australian Prime Minister in 1913.

Compulsory military training for all males between the ages of 12 (school cadets) and 25 was introduced in 1911 and the Army comprised a part time militia known as the Australian Military Forces (AMF), similar to the British Territorial Force, but the Defence Act specifically stated that the AMF could only be used in the defence of Australia and its Territories; they could not be deployed overseas in support of imperial operations.

In 1912, however, preparations between Australia and New Zealand were made for a composite expeditionary force of 18,000 men enlisted on a voluntary basis. The Australian Prime Minister (Fisher) agreed but stated in January 1913 that “these preparations were not to be construed as a binding commitment for an Australian Government to dispatch an expeditionary force. That final decision was to be made when the time arrived.” (John Mordike. An Army for a Nation p 245)

When the time arrived Fisher offered an Australian force of 20,000 men. He could not commit the AMF to the war due to the constraints of the Defence Act but had to rely on volunteers enlisting specifically for overseas service. Thus the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) was formed to meet his pledge. In effect Australia had two military forces during the Great War: the AMF - a compulsory militia force for home defence - and the AIF – a volunteer force raised specifically for the war. Members of the AMF had to transfer to the AIF for overseas service and no unit of the AMF served outside of Australia.

Allie has hit the nail on the head regarding choice. In 1914 most Australians regarded themselves as British; a number had been born in the British Isles themselves and many of the others’ parents or grandparents had been born there. Britain was still referred to as “Home” by many Australians.

The initial response to the call for volunteers in Aug – Oct 1914 was overwhelming: enough to raise an infantry division of three brigades and an extra infantry brigade plus three light horse brigades – a total of 16 infantry battalions, 10 light horse regiments and supporting arms and services. In a table in Anzac to Amiens, within the British Empire Australia rates third highest in the Percentage of Troops in the Field to Population (6.8) behind Great Britain (11.2) and New Zealand (8.9).

Thus it was through strong cultural ties to Britain rather than constitutional commitments that Australia so readily committed itself to the Great War.

Thus for Crotty to say our entering the war was our biggest blunder is to ignore the sentiments of the Nation at the time and the fact that our commitment was entirely voluntary. Australia never introduced conscription during the war despite two divisive referendums on the issue.

Crotty's point that it had a devastating effect on Australia is correct - Gellibrand is reputed to have said that between 1919 and the beginning of the Great Depression the overwhelming atmosphere in Australia was one of mourning, as I am sure it was in Britian and the other Dominions. In the same table mentioned above, Australia rates highest in the the Percentage of Battle Casualties to Troops in the Field (64.8) ahead of New Zealand (58.6) and Canada (49.7). The war had an enormous impact on the country. It has been claimed that the war set Australia's development back for decades due to the loss of so many of our brightest and best and I think this is a theme Crotty is exploiting.

Like Canada, the Great War is seen as the defining period when we became a Nation in our own right. My Grandmother (b1892) said that in 1914 people still clung to their State allegiances refering to themselves as Victorians, Tasmanians, Queenslanders, etc and that the State flags and Union Jacks flew from most buildings; Australian flags only flew on Commonwealth Government buildings - by 1919 they refred to themselves as Australians rather than as Victorians, Queenslanders etc and the Australian national flag was the most prevalent on buildings. Furthermore, most Australians now regarded themselves as Australian rather than British.

Regards

Crunchy

[alliekiwi]

In 1914 most Australians regarded themselves as British; a number had been born in the British Isles themselves and many of the others’ parents or grandparents had been born there. Britain was still referred to as “Home” by many Australians.

To add to that, one only has to look at the Attestation papers the Australian men completed on enlistment to see what they and the country as a whole seemed to consider themselves. Question number three reads:

Are you a natural born British Subject or a Naturalized British Subject (N.B. If the latter, papers to be shown)

If you were born in Australia, you answered 'Yes' as a 'natural born British Subject'.

The New Zealand forms are similar, with question number 3 reading:

Are you a British subject?

I've not seen an Australian form for the Second World War, but the WW2 attestation form for New Zealand shunted your state of Britishness down to question number four (switching places with date of birth) and asked:

Are you a British subject? If naturalized, state where and when.

Allie

[stuartd]

I have to admit to being no expert on Australia and its role in the Great War and am more than happy to be corrected. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that Crotty's view is all well and good, but is simply based on the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of the proportionately high casualties suffered by the Australians. Obviously, there would have been no way of knowing that at the time.

Furthermore, I totally agree with the other posters on the importance of the Great War in the birth of Australia as a nation.

I also seem to recall (from Robert Rhodes James' book 'Gallipoli') that most "Australians" at this time are British born or have British parents and thus in many repects felt that they were fighting for Britain, and that it was the right thing to do. I struggle to see how it was a disaster for the Australians.

I have to admit to being no expert on Australia and its role in the Great War and am more than happy to be corrected. Nevertheless, I can't help but feel that Crotty's view is all well and good, but is simply based on the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of the proportionately high casualties suffered by the Australians. Obviously, there would have been no way of knowing that at the time.

Furthermore, I totally agree with the other posters on the importance of the Great War in the birth of Australia as a nation.

I also seem to recall (from Robert Rhodes James' book 'Gallipoli') that most "Australians" at this time are British born or have British parents and thus in many repects felt that they were fighting for Britain, and that it was the right thing to do. I struggle to see how it was a disaster for the Australians.

[Muerrisch]

Coming at this from a different angle, I ask myself the question:

Was Australia's role in the ultimate victory significant? If not, what is all the ANZAC huffing and puffing about? I believe the role was indeed significant.

Next question: could the ABSENCE of Australia [in significant numbers] have made a difference between victory and defeat? See the above, so, yes, possibly.

Therefore, had not Australia participated significantly, where would a winning Germany have drawn the line in pursuit of lebensraum?. I suspect beyond the Barrossa Valley.

I suspect Australia did itself a good long term turn in playing a significant part in winning the war.

PS sorry about the lack of the circumflex in role, I cannot make it happen.