"A" is for Anzac

[Ozzie]

I have noticed that a few re-enacters from outside Australia wear an "A" on their uniform.

This is not accepted in Australia, although some also in Oz wear them against protocol.

The "A" was given to the men who survived Gallipoli, and they were the only AIF soldiers entitled to wear them. It was their blood, sweat and tears that gave them that right.

You can trot out that by wearing the "A" it completes the uniform or makes it authentic. That is no excuse.

Would you wear someone's else's VC?

Regards

Kim

[Owen D]

This sounds like another thread to bash re-enactors. Not again , please.

Kim, why stop at the A?

Surely they shouldn't be wearing the uniform at all?

As you say they don't deserve it, then they should not be dressed as NCOs, wear medal ribbons, any cap badges or even the uniform of the Australian Forces.

Perhaps they just want to pay tribute to those men?

[Guest KevinEndon]

Maybe they are honouring the heroes of Galipoli by doing this. Fingers crossed thats the reason for wearing the A and no other reason.

Kevin

[CROONAERT]

What's the deal here kim?

Re-enactors can also be found wearing wound stripes, trade/qualification badges, occasionally medal ribbons, rank badges, etc, etc that they are not qualified/entitled to wear either. Some would also argue that the regimental insignia is being worn unentitled also.

If a re-enactor is portraying a 25th April survivor at, say, Villers Bret. 1918, then for accuracy , surely the "A", along with other "unqualified" badges, must be worn? If not, then why bother with the rest of the insignia too?

Personally, I disagree with the with the wearing of unqualified badges/insignia/uniforms, but I accept that, if re-enactment is going to exist (which, obviously it will and does) then , for me, it has to be done as near to 100% historically accurate as possible. For this to happen then certain insignia (the "A" included) must be worn on occasion. (Unless, of course, it really is just "playing soldiers" as some seem to think it is).

Dave

[Ozzie]

I am not having a go at re-enactors.

I think they do a great job in preserving and teaching history so long as it is done correctly.

My point is that there are several things you don't do, whether you are a reenactor or not.

You don't wear someone else's medals, unless you are a decesdant, then you wear them on the other side of your chest.

You don't wear an "A" because that was a badge that was earnt. No other soldier was allowed to wear them, so why should someone today be allowed?

Like I said, do they wear VC's?

Kevin,

The fact that they take an interest in the soldiers and preserve the history is an honour to the soldiers.

But to wear something like a medal or a "A" that they are not entitled to, is not.

Kim

[Ozzie]

The History of ANZAC badge "A"

In November 1917, AIF orders authorised the wearing of a small badge in the form of the letter "A" on unit colour patches to denote that the wearer had taken part in the 1915 Gallipoli campaign. It was later prescribed that the badge would be a brass letter three quarters inch high. A further order, in January 1918 extended the eligibility to service "on the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and Tenedos, on the transports or hospital ships at or off Gallipoli or these islands or in the AIF line of communications units from Egypt". It is interesting to note that this final addition embraced the work of the Australian Army Nursing Service so that both men and women were acknowledged as "the ANZACs".

The wearing of cloth colour patches on the sleeves of jackets was adopted in 1915 as the means of identifying units of the AIF shortly before Australian battalions began to be embarked for service on Gallipoli. The system was retained by the Australian Army after the war and remained in use during the Second World War. ANZAC veterans who were again serving in uniform in the latter period were again able to wear the ANZAC "A".

The ANZAC badge has a hazy origin. Generals Gellibrand, Monash and Birdwood were among those variously given credit for its introduction. It seems most likely that the badge was the culmination of several ideas proposed in early 1916 to give recognition to the Australian veterans of ANZAC. General Monash recorded one expression of such an idea when he paraded his brigade on the celebration of the first ANZAC Day in 1916: "Every man who had served on Gallipoli wore a blue ribbon on the right breast, and every man who, in addition, had taken part in the historic landing on 25 April 1915, wore a red ribbon also. Alas how few of us are left who were entitled to wear both".

Birdwood – himself a central figure on ANZAC – evidently favoured the idea of some permanent distinction to be worn by ANZAC veterans. In August 1916, he told the five Australian divisions that he had no objection to them adopting an "A" badge for their colour patches. There was a mixed reception to the suggestion. Those divisions containing most ANZACs (1st and 2nd Divisions) favoured the idea while the commanders of the 4th and 5th Divisions were initially opposed to it. It was left to each division to make its own arrangements about the provision and adoption of the badge. By November 1916, Monash (3rd Division) was able to report: "All who have a right to be called "ANZACs"among us are now wearing a metal "A" on the colour patches on the sleeves."

In early 1917, convalescent ANZACs began to arrive in Australia wearing the ANZAC "A" and the status of the badge, not previously seen in Australia, was queried. Finally deciding that formal adoption was necessary, AIF Order No. 937 (November 1917) authorised the badge for the whole force and ordered that it be supplied by Ordnance instead of regimental funds. Subsequent orders made the wearing of the badge compulsory and clarified the eligibility rules.

There had been some resentment to the adoption of the badge, particularly in the early years. Survivors of Pozieres and Mouquet Farm in 1916 had, quite reasonably, felt that their experiences were comparable to those of the ANZACs.

Badges – Gallipoli Service

Australian Imperial Force Orders by Lt Gen Sir W.R. Birdwood, Headquarters, Australian Imperial Force. 6th November 1917.

937. Badges – Gallipoli Service

The following Military Order, issued by the Department of Defence, Melbourne, is published for information: "Members of the Australian Imperial Force who served on Gallipoli will be entitled to wear over their Unit "Colour Patches" on both sleeves of the Service Dress Jacket and Greatcoat the letter "A" as an indication that the wearer had taken part in the operations on the Gallipoli Peninsula."

The provisions of the above will apply in all units to all members of the Australian Imperial Force who come within the scope of the Order.

OC Units will indent on ADOS, Administrative Headquarters, AIF, 130 Horseferry Road, London, for necessary supplies.

(Authority: DAG, AIF, 15/86 of 29.10.17).

Source AWM

I think,

"Alas how few of us are left who were entitled to wear both".

sums it up for me.

Kim

[CROONAERT]

I fear I (still) may be missing some point here, but I'd bet that if re-enactors only wore things that they were entitled to wear then there'd be a lot of naked re-enactors out there!

Straying away from WW1 reenactors slightly, one prime example I can think of is how many airborne WW2 reenactors are actually entitled to wear the maroon berets and jump qualification wings? How many WW1 reenactors are qualified Lewis or Vickers gunners, Gun layers, scouts, marksmen, etc? How many reenactor officers carry the Kings or queen's commision? How many have been wounded in action? Not many I bet!

The fact is the vast majority of reenactors wear things that they are not entitled to. If one item is being banned , then everything else may as well be banned too and while we're at it, seeing as none are qualified to even wear the uniform that they do, then the whole re-enactment hobby may as well be banned too.

As for the wearing of medals that are not your own, personally I don't think anyone bar actual person or the next of kin should wear them (I don't even wear my own!), but that's (in my opinion) a completely different thing to re-enactments.

Dave

[Owen D]

Kim

To take your point literally, then the Actors in the Aussie TV series ANZACs should not have been allowed to wear the A either.

see here, it wasn't just the lads at Gallipoli that were entitled to them.

in January 1918 extended the eligibility to service "on the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and Tenedos, on the transports or hospital ships at or off Gallipoli or these islands or in the AIF line of communications units from Egypt".

http://www.awm.gov.au/Encyclopedia/anzac/badge.htm

[Ozzie]

Dave, some, not all , reenactors do their best to keep alive the history. They go to extreme lengths and finacial outlay to do so. They do it correctly. They don't wear badges, stiprs, insinia, or medals that they are not entitled to. They follow procedere and regulations.

It is the others that worry me, the ones in it for the fun or prestige.

A guy in a WW1 or WW2 uniform that is correct in all respects barring badges and medals (and berets), that gets a younger person to ask why, where and how, has my support. (And they know the correct answers). It is when they go overboard with the stuff they should not wear, that it then offends.

Kim

[CROONAERT]

They don't wear badges, stiprs, insinia, or medals that they are not entitled to...

...A guy in a WW1 or WW2 uniform that is correct in all respects barring badges and medals (and berets), that gets a younger person to ask why, where and how, has my support.

So they wear completely badgeless slightly modified uniforms do they? An army of unranked and unqualified unit-less privates? Or do you get serving and ex soldiers only in these re-enactors (badged ,of course, with unit insignia that possibly didn't exist during the wars).

Surely the guy in the WW1 or 2 uniform who's encouraging historical interest and questions must wear the badges, medals, etc to be historically accurate? I really can't see the point doing it otherwise.

Dave

[Owen D]

It is when they go overboard with the stuff they should not wear, that it then offends.

Kim,

I can't see how wearing a brass "A" can be considered offensive or "overboard".

edited in.

I gather it is OK to re-enact an ANZAC serving at Gallipoli but not later in the war when that soldier was awarded his "A"?

Also it's OK to re-enact any ANZAC from any other time of the War but not one who was at Gallipoli.

But as I posted earlier, you didn't have to be at Gallipoli to qualify for the "A".

So does that mean, Kim, that you think the original ANZACs are more worthy than all the others who went on to win all the other ANZAC Battle Honours?

[montbrehain]

Wow ! where do I start with this 1 ??? Did my personal photo prompt this thread?? What I can say is ? . Reading through the posts I can see things are pretty balanced and there are some open minds out there. So at the risk of being insulted and abused (yet again !) here goes. Can a movie change your life ? or at least lead the direction in which it goes ? one did for me . In 1981 (I believe) I went to the pictures in Frankstone Vic to see "Gallipoli". I had allways had an interest in history and Vaguely knew of the Somme.That movie was to spark an interest that I hope will last my lifetime.In the years since , I have visited Gallipoli and been to every battlefield on the western front (some many times) where infantry of the AIF fought . you see My family were £10 poms we immigrated in 66. My dad was a farm worker and i spent most of my younger years and done most of my schooling in the areas around Parkes and Tamworth NSW. Obviously I knew of the Gallipoli campaign from a young age (As most Aussies do ) As long as i can remember I have collected military bits an pieces, uniforms badges etc. During my teenage years I visited my Grandmother pretty often in the uk (usually on the cheapest airline and on the longest route!) It was in the uk I first met a bloke who told me he was a member of a group called the "Khaki Chums" (I also found a wife ! but thats a different story) The "Chums" have a different view and are most certainly not "BANG BANG your dead, reenactors. They are very serious historians. And amongst their number a very wide knowledge base exists. I was asked to join them and since have been invited to represent the AIF at many official (and for me very moving) ceremonies. Why moving ? you may ask ? Moving because I KNOW the true human cost behind these ceremonies. I know i wont convince everybody and im not even going to try. But my hearts in the right place and in my own small way I Like to think I have represented the AIF when they would not have had representation.(more than once I have been asked "were the Australians here?) I dont wear wound stripes or medals.And Allthough I know I havent earned it the "A" is my way of honouring those of the AIF who served on Gallipoli. LEST WE FORGET.

prior to the unveiling of the Gallipoli memorial in St Pauls Cathederal

[SiegeGunner]

Goodness, Taff looks young in that photo. Is he lurking somewhere in the wings — 'cos I'm sure he could inform this debate with his vast experience of recreating historical events for veterans organisations, films, documentaries, etc. Likewise Andy (Beersheba).

[auchonvillerssomme]

Just goes to prove that if you look long and hard enough you will find something that offends you. A!?

Mick

[Muerrisch]

I am fairly relaxed on this subject, but reenactment [call it what you will] thoroughly done is stunning in its effect.

In the mid 1990s I attended the 80th anniversary of Toc H [served afternoon tea as a waiter in period clothing!] and there were some superb reenactors present.

In the evening we all went to Menin Gate.

The 'soldiers' marched on very smartly and laid a wreath. The effect was electrifying, indeed one old lady shrieked as if she had seen a ghost [as indeed she possibly had].

Take away the unit badges, the rank badges and the 1914 ribbon [issued before war ended] and the coloured lanyards and whatever and you are left with a pale Bournemouth Pier representation.

Good on yer, if it is well done.

[squirrel]

I agree with Grumpy. If it is well done and in a spirit of remembrance then why not?

[max7474]

Agreed in the right spirit it is fine and I see no problem with Anzac badges, medal ribbons etc. What I find distasteful is when they turn up as 'entertainers' at what should be solemn events. There is a time and a place for it. As mentioned earlier I find the re-enactors who are drawn to elite Airborne units a bit 'walter mitty' though; there is a fine line between commemerating brave men and those who inadequacies see them basking in the reflected glory of others.

Alan

[Steven Broomfield]

I don't wish to re-hash the re-enactors debate, but I have to say, Kim, that although i see your point, I have to disagree. If you're going to re-enact, it has to be all or nothing.

And providing it's done in the spirit of respect - well, I can't see a problem.

[Heatseeker]

I have noticed that a few re-enacters from outside Australia wear an "A" on their uniform.

This is not accepted in Australia, although some also in Oz wear them against protocol.

The "A" was given to the men who survived Gallipoli, and they were the only AIF soldiers entitled to wear them. It was their blood, sweat and tears that gave them that right.

You can trot out that by wearing the "A" it completes the uniform or makes it authentic. That is no excuse.

Would you wear someone's else's VC?

Regards

Kim

I think that I, for one, could safely assume that a re-enactor with an "A" on his uniform in 2006 was not one of the original ANZACs who served at Gallipoli!

[Ozzie]

OK, I see your (collective) points.

I suppose my view of reenactment was tainted by some dubious ones here in Oz.

For all the good ones, I suppose it is the bad that colour your view.

Eg: Beards and sunglasses on Light Horse reanctors. Wrong insignia and ranks.

Still a bit wary, but the point made about all or nothing, does swing me a bit.

Cheers

Kim

[Steven Broomfield]

Eg: Beards and sunglasses on Light Horse reanctors.

Nice

[CROONAERT]

I suppose my view of reenactment was tainted by some dubious ones here in Oz.

Don't worry, there are some bloody dubious ones here in the UK too! (Though it seems that the USA has the monopoly on dubious (especially WW2) reenactment).

I ,also, generally have a negatively tainted view of re-enactment ( as has been seen in past postings on this subject matter), but I've never had a problem with it if it has been done right (and that includes re-enactment of WW2 "elite" forces of both sides - which I know that many members of this forum have a problem with for some reason). Problem is, there're so many poor efforts in reenactment that it gives the good ones a bad name too.

Dave

[Auimfo]

Sorry Kim, but I tend to agree with the others on this. I understand where you're coming from and the sentiment behind your thoughts but rather than what they wear, I think it's more a case of the reason and spirit with which they wear it.

I'm not into re-enacting myself but don't have any problems with those who are - it's just not my bag. But if someone's going to do it, they might as well get it right.

I also think the poor one's, in it only for a laugh, are obviously a big detriment to the serious re-enactors who try and show the proper respect.

Tim L.

[montbrehain]

Thank you ! im sorry if my post was over long or a bit of a life story. I just wanted to show that i hadnt just popped down the local reenactors superstore. And that what i have done has allways been done with the best intentions. It has all been said before on the forum many many times,. But Nobody can say which is the right or wrong way to honour those who offered and those who gave. As long as we do is all that matters.......

[Barry Hayter]

My take, for what it's worth, is that if they are dressing as 'A Soldier of the Great War' without identity (or

perhaps as a relative though that's dubious) I see no problem with it. They are simply keeping something alive which should never be forgotten.

If however they march out and say "Check me out I'm Albert Jacka" and start swanning around as if they were that man I'd have serious moral issues with it.

Anything to help people understand the horrors of what a past generation went through for our futures is a positive thing if done tastefully.

I'd never wear my GGFs medals, I never met him, know little of him as a person and certainly would never have had the iron stomach to achieve what he did in his career.