WALKING WITH THE ANZACS

[Ozzie]

Well said, MB and Neil.

If Mat was to write a book about the Aussies for the Brits to read, it would be a whole new kettle of fish.

This book was written by an Aussie, for the Aussies, with the subtitle explaination, and was published for that market. As Mat has explained.

If other nationalties read the book, they should do so with that understanding.

As have some already, from outside Oz. Who have read it, and recommended it, which only speaks highly of what a good job Mat has done.

Maybe any one that has a problem with it should consult some other Aussie books, to get a feeling for Aussie writing.

As for the NZ's. IMHO, they are, have been, and always will be, Australians closest allies in every way and visa versa. We may fight amongst ourselves over things, after all we are ' colonial cousins', but don't be trying to start WW3 between us, you might not like what you get.

We each have our own military history, each history is one to be proud of. And an entwined military history. Our soldiers share a name, Anzac, a name that is looked upon with pride and respect by both countries.

Kiwis and Aussies know what it means and value it.

If I saw a book titled Anzacs, the History of New Zealand Military, I would deem that a just and well earnt title, realizing that it is the NZ half of the ANZAC history.

NZ authors are now putting out more NZ miltary history, which is great, and here is hoping for lots more.

Regards

Kim

[Guest KevinEndon]

Question for Matt here. Have you noticed a rise in sales recently due to this publicity, I hope so.

[Paul Reed]

Just a personal observation, but backed with a little professional knowledge. To make a book a success, you need a good title. The title of this book says it all for an Australian market, and I am sure sales of it will reflect the good choice of that title.

While ANZAC originally was of course used to catagorise AIF and NZEF soldiers, it is clear how this acronym came to stand more for Australian troops than New Zealanders. A search of internet book sites will show how that continues with publications to this day, going right back to the ANZAC Book of 1916.

Like others, I found this a good, intelligent book and again from a personal stance I welcome books that give people a lead in walking the battlefields.

[Fedelmar]

How many times have the Brits written about the war and forgotten about the ANZAC's being there, both Aussie's and Kiwi's?

My grandfather was an Anzac and came home wounded, my three uncle's were Anzac's, one did not come and the other two were wounded. One of my grandfather's cousin's was an Anzac and he did not come home.

If you read this carefully you will note the difference

Well done Matt ... I love my signed copy too

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Auimfo]

Mo,

Walking with 'some of the Anzacs' still means they are Anzacs and therefore are entitled to use the term. On my trip to the Western Front and Gallipoli last year I met up with Forum members. No, not all of them - but the ones I did meet are still forum members and I shouldn't have to qualify them with a 'some'. Whether you talk about all of them or just a particular part of them doesn't mean they are any less a member of that entire group.

And I'm pretty sure the majority of Australians are aware that the NZ refers to New Zealanders. In the period of time you were in Australia, there was less importance about the events of WW1 but in recent years there has been a massive resurgence and a great deal more interest shown by the young people of this country. I'd hazard a guess and say that the majority actually do have some understanding of what Anzac means.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Auimfo]

Allie,

If I understand what you're suggesting, Mat perhaps should have called his book "Walking With Anzacs - A guide etc etc". Yes, it may be semantics and I'm pretty certain Mat didn't intend the 'the' to be seen in that way, but it is a fair and reasonable suggestion and above all makes sense.

Unfortunately, there would still be those who attempt to take Mat to task for his use of the word 'Anzacs' in any form. I still maintain that since all the soldiers Mat discusses 'are' Anzacs, then he is quite entitled to use the name in the title - just as long as he doesn't imply that they were the 'only' Anzacs.

Cheers,

Tim L.

P.S. - If one of the rockiest moment was 'underarm-gate' then we're not doing too badly as neighbours.

[Fedelmar]

Nope ... not the fruit loops Allie ... ya mixed your banana's and apples

NEXT TOPIC PLEASE!

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[chrislock]

Some realy good posts here! The English language may be shared around the globe, but read in YOUR style of English and it may not be what you think you read at all! Well I know what I'm saying anyway, even if you Aussie's don't!

Don't worry about your book Mat, I'll say it again. The content is great for an Aussie or anyone else come to that, who wishes to study Aussie stuff, but the interpretaion of the word ANZAC aint! Well according to my visiting Kiwi's anyway.

I'm still looking forward to my beer mind Mat!

[Ken Lees]

I don't feel particularly strongly either way on this discussion, although I do commend all participants for the respect shown to each other and especially to Mat - anyone who makes the effort to publish deserves respect.

Wishing to broaden my knowledge of 'other' divisions and battalions, outside of my special interests, I have just read the NZ Divisional History and having done so I decided to make a point of studying some of their battlefields on future trips to the Western Front. With that in mind I looked for further reading material to assist with that and came across the title of Mat's book. Fortunately, I discovered that the usual large internet bookstores don't stock it. I say fortunately because it is now apparent that it doesn't cover the subject I was interested in.

But now, having read this thread, I have decided this is another 'must have' book (can you hear my bookshelves groaning at the thought?) and I have ordered a copy from Tom Morgan.

So, all's well that ends well and Mat makes another sale.

I wonder if young Morgan's off to the Post Office yet?

Ken

[Tom Morgan]

Ken - all is well with your book - PM sent a moment ago.

Tom

[Mat McLachlan]

This space was previously occupied by a lengthy post that gave detail about why I feel that the title is still correct even with the word 'the' included, but I've deleted it because the whole idea that I'd have to justify it is really a bit silly. I'll leave the last line in though:

At the end of the day, it's all academic anyway. The title will remain 'Walking with the Anzacs' and any subsequent additions to the franchise will also be called 'Walking with the Anzacs', even if they only contain Aussie content. Sorry about that.

Cheers,

Mat

[Auimfo]

No probs with me Mat. As you said, it's only intended for the Australian audience and therefore 'the Anzacs' within the context of the Australian community is fine.

For anyone else, it's defined in the title with the word 'Australian' so that shouldn't be a problem either.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Peter Beckett]

Slightly off-topic but ABE books has one copy of New Zealand Battlefields and Memorials of the Western Front available

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResu...p;x=56&y=15

Peter

[Neil Mackenzie]

How many times have the Brits written about the war and forgotten about the ANZAC's being there, both Aussie's and Kiwi's?

Sandra

Sandra.

You may well be right, and I will be swamped by people providing examples, but I haven't come across one that doesn't mention them - with the possible exception of a book on Allied Artillery that doesn't seem to mention them separately but I haven't read it all.

Neil

[truthergw]

I have been giving that a bit of thought and can't recall a book which did not credit Anzacs, Canadians or any other Commonwealth troops if they were entitled to a mention. I suppose a unit memoir may have concentrated on the unit in question but I can't think of one.

[Fedelmar]

I notice that several people that have responded have not read the book. It is mostly about battlefields where the Australians fought and died along with the cemeteries and guides people to where they are and where Australian's are buried. It discusses the battles that brought them to be buried in that cemetery. Matt's book discusses SOME of the dead in the cemetery.

A reader will see it discusses how to use the book ... how plan the trip ... where to go ... where to stay ... how to get there ... places to visit ... maps that you need ... clothes to wear ... soverniers ... how to research an Australian soldier and websites to visit.

A paragraph from the Preface pg xii:

"Each walking tour is followed by a list of other sites of interest in the area, plus local cemeteries of interest to Australians. I don't expect every visitor to walk every tour in the book"

The book is dedicated to "Merryn and Brooke and for the Men of the First AIF"

As I said in my previous post:

NEXT TOPIC!!!

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[chrislock]

I started this topic for several reasons and I am extremely grateful for the honest opinions, especialy Mat's responses. He is the Author after all! It has been most interesting and I hope all of our questions have been answered. It most certainly has for me. If this thread has been useful to any of you, regarding any future ANZAC books, then it was an exercise worthwhile!

Best wishes, Chris.

[1st east yorks]

I have just read the whole of this thread with interest,i,m sorry to continue the debate but i just need to add my thoughts.Im English,but im on the side of the aussies here.The term Anzac can apply to both the Australians AND/OR the New Zealanders.

Mat makes clear, in the title, who the book is about, so there should be no confusion.

An Australian soldier is an Anzac.

A New Zealand soldier is an Anzac.

They are both entitled to use the term.

Just my thoughts,respectfully,

Anthony.

[1st east yorks]

Mo,

Only just found your reply.Your absolutely right,since sending my post i have been in a personal converstion with a Kiwi who explained it the way you have.At first i did not see the problem,but now i can see that the use of the word THE makes all the difference.It could mislead people into thinking that the Australians were THE Anzacs.Maybe a more appropriate title may have been'Walking wth Anzacs,the Australian battlefields'.In the hope that i have not offended any of our southern hemisphere cousins, i am yours respectfully,

Anthony.

[Fedelmar]

MO ... never mind love ... have a cuppa and Bex and a lie down.

[Kerry Stockbridge]

Fell over this topic. Personally I have no problem with the book's title (and I'm a Kiwi) and it is very clear that the book focuses on Australian ANZAC's ...

An interesting aside is what I consider to be a sorry lack of knowledge amongst Kiwis (and possibly for that matter Australians) in relation to the actions of their respective forces during WWI. IMHO nearly all Kiwis are aware of Gallipoli, but are much less aware of the role of NZ forces on the Western Front. Most I have talked to did not know that NZ also fought in France/Flanders, which is a sorry state of affairs.

[Fedelmar]

Hello Kerry in the land of the long white cloud

Read my post #46

When I was at school ... a long long long time ago ... we were taught what ANZAC stood for and about Gallipoli ... we were never taught about France and Belgium although I remember being taught the poem In Flanders Fields and what it stood for. What I learnt of the war came from comics and movies.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Kerry Stockbridge]

Oh I'd love to be back in the land of the long white cloud instead of being in the land of 55% taxation, i.e. Denmark ;-)

You had exactly the same experience I had in regards to ANZAC/Gallipoli etc. I spent also a large amount of my youth (from what I remember) reading Commando comics, from which I learnt that Germans can only say "Achtung" etc. Now, some of my best friends live south of the border (i.e. in Germany). Funny how things work out sometimes.

[central]

intresting... sigh.