Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

WALKING WITH THE ANZACS


chrislock

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys.

I need to ask several questions regarding this book please. The first question is:

1. Is there a follow up or twin book from Mat, regarding New Zealand battlefields on the western front to go with this one? The reason I ask, a visiting Kiwi saw this on a book shop shelf and purchased it. When he got home, he found that although the main title states "Walking with the ANZACS" there is in fact nothing in the book relating to KIWI battlefields etc. He gave me the book. I actualy like it being English :lol: however

2. On page 10, bottom paragraph reads" In August 1916 it was decided that VC's would no longer be awarded for rescuing wounded" I'm a little confused by this statement as for example, Noel Chavasse's 1917 bar to his VC immediately comes to light! Maybe it's an Australian thing. :unsure: Can anyone help please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the paragraph Ken, it is written as per the book and makes no suggestions to any interpretation! I know where you are coming from, but surely it would say so if that is was meant?

Can the Aussies and Kiwis here answer this one please! What does ANZAC mean? I always thought it was an Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. I didn't think it was just Australian!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I might be qualified to give some input into this topic. ;)

1. The use of the word 'Anzac' for a specifically-Australian guidebook was a subject of much discussion between myself and my publisher. In the end, we decided that for the sake of clarity in the title, the use of the word was appropriate. It should be noted that the book's subtitle, printed immediately below the title, says 'A Guide to Australian Battlefields on the Western Front', so the cover should hopefully make it clear that it just deals with the Aussies. The back cover also spells this out pretty clearly. I apologise to any Kiwis whose noses were put out of joint, but as I said in the Explanation, I'm an Australian, and there are numerous New Zealand authorities who would do a much better job telling the NZ story than I. It's also important to note that usage of the term 'Anzac' is now much broader than its original narrow reference to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps at Gallipoli, and while the Australians obviously didn't comprise the entire Anzac Corps, they still called themselves 'Anzacs', so for my mind it's not inappropriate to refer to them as such in the title. The book isn't a scholary tome dedicated to a comprehensive history of the Anzac Corps; it's simply a guidebook, and the title is supposed to be as equally evocative as it is descriptive.

Also, as an aside, even though the book isn't a guide to the NZ battlefields, I do mention the Kiwis where they fought alongside the Aussies or a walking tour takes the visitor past a notable NZ memorial or site, such as Buttes Cemetery or the NZ Memorial at Messines. It's not true that there's 'no' mention of the Kiwis in the book!

2. The text referred to on page 10 is a footnote at the bottom of a table, and refers to an order issued by the British High Command in August 1916. The 1st Australian Division issued its version of the order as such: "Instructions have been received that in future the V.C. will only be given for acts of conspicuous gallantry which are materially conducive to the gaining of a victory. Cases of gallantry in life saving, of however fine a nature, will not be considered for the award of the V.C." GHQ issued a further order in September that noted the VC could not be awarded for the rescue of wounded, "excepting for those whose duty it is to care for such cases." Chavasse, as a member of the RAMC, fell into the latter category. Unfortunately the ambiguity of the order led to a wide range of interpretations - the Australian Army Medical Services determined that it was no longer allowed to recommend its members for the VC, and didn't for the rest of the war. See Appendix 8 of Volume III of the Official History of the Australian Army Medical Services for a thorough discussion of this topic.

Glad the book is generating some conversation. It's just been reprinted, so is back on shelves, but unfortunately there wasn't the opportunity to update the text, so a small number of parts are slightly outdated (even in the three years since I wrote it). I've asked my publisher that I be given an opportunity for a proper update before the next reprint.

I always like to get feedback, so if anyone has other comments or queries, feel free to let me know.

Cheers,

Mat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response Mat. I am reading your book at the moment. I live in the Ypres Salient and walk the battlefields most days. Your book is superb as an Australian guide book here! I most certainly will recommend it, regarding the Aussie involement during the 3rd Ypres battles. So a big thumbs up from me on the Salient part. That is the only part I have visited so far with your book in tow, so I can only comment on that part obviously.

Thank you for your explanation of the term ANZAC, as seen through an Australians eyes. It is now quite clear, that Aussie's generaly see themselves only as ANZACS, where as us Brits and obviously the KIWi's see Aussie's and Kiwi's together as ANZACS. Well that's the feed back from my Kiwi guests anyway.

I wish you had included that whole paragraph above in your post about 1916 VC's, because the paragraph in your book, just states the one line sentence that "No more VC's were to be awarded for saving the wounded from 1916 onwards" It brought out a whole barrage of discussion last night and all involved said that this statement is totaly un true however, I can now reveal all!

I just hope the Kiwi's understand the Australian understanding of the term ANZAC!

Thanks again for your in depth explanation Mat. It is much appreciated and I am realy enjoying your book!

Best regards, Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the reply and your kind words about the book.

Just for the sake of clarity (and to avoid starting a Great War with our mates across the Tasman), Australians certainly don't consider the word 'Anzac' to just mean Australians. From very early in school we are taught the meaning and significance of the word, and have a great appreciation for the shared bond between the Aussies and Kiwis during the war, particularly at Gallipoli. When it comes to my book, it was written by an Australian, for an Australian audience, and apart from a handful of copies in the UK and Ypres, is only distributed in Australia. It may not appear obvious to an overseas reader, but there is no intention to disregard the great work of the NZ forces. The word 'Anzac' was used because it is instantly recognisable (on an Australian bookshelf) as 1) being about the Great War and 2) having an Australian focus (to differentiate it from the thousands of Great War books published every year from a British perspective).

It's also probably a good time to bring up correct usage of the word. 'ANZAC' (all caps) should only be used as an acronym to refer to the original Australian and New Zealand Army Corps that served at Gallipoli (or, less commonly, to I ANZAC and II ANZAC, the two Aus/NZ corps that served on the Western Front). 'Anzac' (lower-case) is used to refer to hundres of other things: Anzac Day, Anzac biscuits, Anzac Cove, the Aus/NZ area of operations at Gallipoli, and also as a colloquial term for soldiers from Australia or New Zealand (and not just during the First World War). This was the usage in the title of my book: 'Walking with the Anzacs'. If the book had been called 'Walking with the ANZAC', I would definitely have needed to include NZ content, because it would be referring to the original corps that served at Gallipoli (although this would make no sense, because the book is about the Western Front). This point is made more confusing by the fact that the title of the book is written in all caps: 'WALKING WITH THE ANZACS'.

I am truly sorry if anyone overlooked the subtitle and mistakenly bought the book thinking it would be full of New Zealand content. In fact, if there is anyone out there who feels strongly about this, send the book back to me and I'll happily give you a refund. I don't want to appear overly-sensitive, but I don't want this issue to get out of hand: anyone who thinks the title of one guidebook reflects a national neglect of the significance of New Zealand's contribution to the war is just plain wrong.

Regarding the footnote about the award of VCs, brevity was obviously important, which is why I didn't enter into a 200-word dissertation about the significance of the August 1916 order. But the line, although brief, is still correct: the order stated implicitly that the VC would no longer be awarded for rescuing wounded. There was an exception, that members of the medical services would still qualify, but considering the Australian medical services didn't see it this way, the exception isn't particularly relevant from an Aussie perspective.

Both these misunderstandings are perhaps caused by the fact that the book was not written for international distribution. It's not a case that I was trying to be one-eyed when I wrote it: I was simply writing exclusively for an Australian audience, in a book that is only distributed in Australia.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

Cheers,

Mat

PS: Chris, I'll be in Ypres early in April. Happy to meet up for a beer if you'd like to discuss it in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I have immense respect for the opinions of the members of this forum. Chris raised some valid points and which I hope I've been able to address. No work is above criticism, and I enjoy discussing the book with people who share my interest.

However, the suggestion that a footnote in an Australian book, about Australian soldiers, by an Australian author, for an Australian audience is "wrong in British terms" and the assertion that the book "needs to be updated" by someone who hasn't even read it is the sort of cheap point-scoring that has made me reluctant to contribute to the forum in recent months.

Mat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Ypresman and Mat! The problem is ours! Us Brits and I fear a long underlying smouldering grudge, that has made some Kiwi's feel the same, especially when they believe they have been airbrushed out of certain events, by her much bigger neighbour, even without intention! I think Mat has made it clear that this book was intended for a home audience however, there lies the problem. Allow the book to enter the realms of nations who are removed from the Australian train of thought and misunderstandings over terminology, shine through! It seems a great book to me so far Mat and I CERTAINLY WOULD RECOMMEND IT TO AN AUSSIE over here however, as my Kiwi guests point out, the book's title, means a little different to them. I'm listening to Kiwi's here and I would love to hear how other Aussies feel about this? I have a full house of them soon, so that will be a tester! ;)

By the way Mat, I would never say "NO" to a beer. Especialy from an Aussie! :rolleyes: I would be honoured to buy you a beer by the way!

Best regards,

Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting dilemma, this. The point about a distinction between ANZAC and Anzac is well made, and I doubt whether Mat's publisher would have agreed to a title of "Walking with the AIF". From a British perspective, I would have thought that 'the Diggers' was the Australian equivalent of 'Tommies', and a suitably familiar (and exclusively Australian) WW1 term to use in a title, but that is evidently not the case from the Australian perspective. This is clearly an issue that should be left to our antipodean cousins to argue about (or not), but it has certainly been discussed on the Forum before, and I recall NZ pals making the point that they do not refer to their troops as Anzacs when they operated alone.

From an abstract, linguistic viewpoint, it's interesting to observe that only the first of the five letters of Anzac actually refers to Australia, and that the distinctive impact of the word comes from the last four letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points Siege Gunner. The alternate title we were discussing was in fact 'Walking with the Diggers', but we felt it didn't have the linguistic ring of the word 'Anzac' or carry the same instant recognition. (There's also an argument that the word 'diggers' originated with the Kiwis, so I'm sure I still would have copped flak if I'd used that instead.)

I hadn't really thought about the New Zealanders referring to their troops as Anzacs when they operated alone, and to be honest I don't think we Aussies would often refer to our troops en masse that way either. It's simply a case with this book that we wanted a word that instantly said 'Australian soliders' and 'Anzac' was deemed the most appropriate. The full title of the book is 'Walking with the Anzacs: A Guide to Australian Battlefields on the Western Front', so the question to be asked (and I assure you, we asked it alot before the book came out) is: is it appropriate to refer to Australian soldiers as 'Anzacs'? I think it is.

I suppose there's a parallel with Bean calling Volume IV of his Official History 'The Australians in France'. Belgium could argue it has been left out, but Bean is obviously only using the colloquial term of the time - the entire Western Front was usually called 'France' by the Aussies to differentiate it from Gallipoli and the Middle East. I'm comfortable with that one too.

I'll repeat this: the title was not intended as a slight on NZ, or to suggest that the book carried NZ content when it didn't. I'm sure that had the book also been distributed in New Zealand we would have either picked a different title or (more likely) included some NZ-specific content. But, at the end of the day, I reckon if I did write a guide to the New Zealand battlefields, the Kiwis would be justified in asking why an Aussie felt he had the right to tell their story.

Mat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all

Driven into a cauldersack hit the reverse

Maybe a New Zealand Medic with a Donkey could be of assistance?

Or a digger from the Maori Pioneer Battalion could help you dig your way out?, only joking. :rolleyes:

As long as the true meaning of ANZAC or Anzac is not lost things are ok.

Cheers from NZ Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, Australians often us Anzac and mean only Australian, whereas Kiwis use Anzac and generally mean Australians and New Zealanders. When we talk only about the NZers, we talk about the NZEF. I think both sides need to understand the other side's usage so as not to give and take offence. However, when you live in your own country surrounded by people using the word the same way you do, you tend not to realise that others use it differently.

I like the 'Walking with the AIF' title far better.

To go with the guidebook mentioned by Paul Reed, there is the companion Gallipoli version by the same author. Gallipoli: A Guide to New Zealand Battlefields and Memorials.

By the way, Mick, you put your foot in it with the mention of 'digger'. ;)

Allie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started the thread for more information and these valid replies are most appreciated! Some realy good points coming up here, from all points of view. Mat, this is very important mate, they are definately not malicious! It's just the English language and how we all interpretate it, that's all! As a Brit, Walking with the Diggers or the AIF would of been much more appropiate from our position, if the book is just about Australians. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, I have to disagree mate. This topic isn't 'very important'. It's a linguistic discussion that actually diverts attention from the objective of the book, which is to bring the battlefields to life for readers. The suggestion that you can't use the word 'Anzac' in an emotive context without referring equally to Australians and New Zealanders is a bit of a stretch. The book isn't called 'The Comprehensive Guide to the Battlefields of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps'. The title is emotive, in the same way that 'Somme Mud' isn't a book about the composition of wet dirt in northern France, 'With a Machine Gun to Cambrai' isn't actually about lugging an automatic weapon to a French town, and 'Anzac to Amiens' isn't a travelogue about an interesting train journey across Asia Minor and Europe. In the same way, my book doesn't actually describe strolling about the battlefields with the ghosts of the dead - it's a descriptive title used to elicit an emotive response. The full title of the book is 'Walking with the Anzacs: A Guide to Australian Battlefields on the Western Front.'

I can understand why a New Zealander who stumbled across the book in an Aussie bookshop might pick it up expecting it to contain NZ content, but the most cursory glance at the cover would indicate otherwise. I'd go so far as to suggest that your NZ mate who mistakenly purchased it is an isolated case, although if I now receive a flood of emails from disgruntled Kiwis who've made the same mistake, I'll happily begin issuing refund cheques.

My hope is that our New Zealand friends will appreciate my use of the word 'Anzac' is to instantly identify the book as incorporating content that is of relevance to Australians, and not some insidious attempt to scrub NZ from the history books. Anyone who has read the book will note that I refer to the New Zealanders in the most respectful tones whenever they are mentioned and, as far as I know, there is not a New Zealand Memorial or site of interest on any of my walking tours that doesn't receive a mention. Much of pages 43 and 44, for example, deals exclusively with the New Zealand capture of Messines, decribed to the reader whilst they are standing in the grounds of the New Zealand Memorial. This is not to suggest that the book is brimming with NZ content, simply that, when there is New Zealand content, it's appropriately respectful. (As an aside, I refer to Mud Corner Cemetery as an 'Anzac' Cemetery, because nearly all the men who lie there are Australians or New Zealanders.)

I feel that my book is an important work, and has given thousands of Australians the opportunity to discover the significance of the Western Front battlefields for themselves. It's fine if the title of the book sparks an interesting linguistic debate about modern usage of the term 'Anzac', but I'd also hope for a measure of perspective about what the book is trying to achieve. It could be called 'Revenge of the Zucchini People' for all I care, but that wouldn't change the fact that the content is intended to awaken people about the great deeds of great men.

I am sincerely sorry if I've caused offence to any New Zealanders. It's not intended or warranted.

Cheers,

Mat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KevinEndon

I am not an Ozzie nor a Kiwi, I am disabled and cant walk far, however I found the book a fantastic read even though I will never walk the ANZAC's route. Brilliant offer from Mat about sending the book back for a full refund if you thought it was full of Kiwi's movements. Mats hands were tied when it came to the naming of the book.

Have you thought Mat that there are a possible two more books you could write. "Walking with just the Ozzies" and "Walking with just the Kiwis".

I have told many a friend that the book is available through Tom Morgan and I have had numerous pm's saying thanks for the heads up, the book is fantastic. I dont think I have passed the heads up to anyone who was not in the U.K.

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also echo Kevin's words Mat! The book has to be one of the first choices for visiting Aussies here to the Western Front. For a book to generate only cases of questioning, ie The 1916 VC statement and the book title as seen from a NZ or UK point of view, I would say you have a put together a pretty damn good book! But you as yourself admitted, the book was originally for Aussie viewing and home service only and there is the rub! How Brits and Kiwi's understand it is another matter. To me and I can only speak of me, ANZAC or anzac means quite literaly Australian New Zealand Army Corps or a soldier from Australia or New Zealand, definately not just a Aussie! Your book is fine Mat, it's just a matter interpretation and awareness of that word ANZAC! Thank you for educating us on the feelings of Oz and your countryman's relationship with THAT word! You just have to convince the Kiwi's now ha! :lol:

Cheers Mat and keep up the great work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No comment :( "MO"

Even "No comment" is a comment <_<

Where can I obtain a copy, now that Tom's literary empire is no more?

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tickled my funny bone...

I just looked up 'walking with the anzacs' on amazon.co.uk to see if there were any copies available, and it said:

McLachlan, Mat: Walking with the Anzacs - A Guide to Australian Battlefields... by Enid Blyton (Paperback - 1999)

Currently unavailable

By Enid Blyton? :lol: Mat, is there anything you can do to get that corrected? Otherwise we should all be reading your book whilst swilling back copious quantities of gingerbeer.

Allie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KevinEndon

His greatest books were "the Famous Five Route March to Auchonvillers" with

Major Julian Bruce, Captain Dick Bruce, Nurse Anne Sheila, Tom Boy Georgina George Sheila Bruce and the btn mascot Timmy the koala.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MB. You summed it up beautifully, far better than I ever could! I do hope Mat realises how good his book realy is, especialy if you are an Aussie, or anyone apart from a KIWI! The title is the problem. The book is not! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But its not aimed at the British market so doesn't need to be written with the British reader in mind.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure where the problem lies here.

Mat's book clearly defines 'Australian' on the front cover. Anyone who buys it on the assumption that it includes other content obviously hasn't read either the title or the blurb - and I would think that more the fault of the buyer rather than of the author or publisher.

Yes - I am an Aussie and admit to probably having slight bias, however I don't believe there is any problem referring to Australian soldiers as Anzacs. Just like I don't believe there is any problem with Kiwi's referring to their soldiers in the same manner. The term referred to both equally and as members of that group, each is entitled to it's use individually. At Gallipoli they were dubbbed the Anzacs and therefore each man was by definition an individual Anzac and continued to be so throughout the war and beyond. Hence, Mat's term is correct.

As an example: If I were to write a book titled "Native American Indians - A guide to the Apache, Sioux and Commanche tribes" and discussed these particular tribes and only briefly mentioned others, does that mean that my title is wrong and that those I did discuss 'aren't' native American Indians?

Mat's decision to discuss a particular group within the Anzac spectrum does not detract from the fact that they were still Anzacs and he clearly qualifies which specific part of 'Anzac' he writes about in the title.

On a personal note, even though Australians refer to their soldiers as Anzacs, this tradition is not a slight on the NZ's and is in fact quite the opposite. By doing so, we remember and acknowledge their part in our history (and vice-versa) and the shared experience of two young nations coming of age.

Cheers,

Tim L.

P.S. Mat - As I'm the owner of the first copy of your book ever sold (suitably signed and endorsed by the author), how much would I get for it if I returned it to you? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously you are Australian.

My great uncle fought and died in the AIF but neither he nor I are Australian. :)

I don't want to make a big deal about it but the point I am trying to make is we wouldn't expect someone writing about the German army to change all the names of the trenches to the British equivalents just to make it easier for a British audience. On that basis I just don't see why a book on the Australian army should be written from the British viewpoint.

Neil

(from Purley)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...