MH4485
Dec 14, 2007
Writing Feedback / Essay on ANZAC and National Identity [3]
Hi,
Please could you help me correct my essay and explain the mistakes?
Thank you!
The essay: ANZAC and National Identity
Introduction
The Australian and New Zealand army corps, ANZAC, ended in stalemate, defeat and eventually evacuation. Anzac soldiers, who fought bravely, had lost the Battle of Gal-lipoli. Their mission to assist Britain to capture Istanbul and knock Turkey out of the war could be said that it was not a success. However, people, today, try to remember ANZAC as their national symbol. They are proud of the name 'ANZAC' that endures to this day. According to the Australia's official war historian Charles Bean, ANZAC developed an Australian concept of ANZAC Spirit in the post-World War I period among returned servicemen, who had the opinion of the ANZACs changing from an Edwardian conception of Australia within Empire to a tolerance of larrikinism.
Charles Bean was an Australian journalist, war correspondent and historian. He had been one of the engagements involving Australian troops and, in that sense, saw more action than any other Australian in the Great War. On the assumption of his journal I will discuss Australian's national identity and ANZAC. The theme, which I will discuss in this essay, is the fundamental values and interests which spurred these young Australians to do what they did on the other side of the world more than 90 years ago, remain the values and interests that animate the societies today and are at the core of the contemporary Australia patriotism and alliance. They explain why the ANZAC re-membrance is still so prominent than it has ever been, more than 50 years since World War I.
Anzac and Australia's Position at the Outbreak of the Great War
As we know ANZAC was an army corps of Australia and New Zealand troops that in the Great War at Gallipoli fought against the Turks. ANZAC came to stand not just for the troops in World War I but also for Australian and New Zealand soldiers in time of war. There were three Australian and one New Zealand brigades that were employed as infantry with ANZAC during the Gallipoli campaign. One of the Australian brigades, the 2nd Division, began to arrive from Australia in August 1915 and some battalions saw action on Gallipoli in the final months of the campaign.
In Charles Bean's journal, it could be envisaged what had happened to Anzac and how the whole event of the Gallipoli battle had been. In his journal Charles Bean had reported about the Australian 'Defence Scheme'. As one might presume the 'Defence Scheme' might be the main reason for the establishment of the Anzac Corps. 'During the arrangements made at the Imperial Conferences, the Committee of Imperial Defence, in supporting the dominions to draw up their 'Defence Schemes', had ar-ranged some warnings which should be sent to them by the British Government when there was danger of war.' The Committee of Imperial Defence made two warning mes-sages. These two messages would be sent in times of danger by the British Government to the Governor-General of each dominion. The first message was: 'imminent danger of war' , the second was: 'if war arrived, notifying the fact.' Once the Governor-General of each dominion receives the first message, the Government of the dominion would: 'if it thought fit, order the 'precautionary stage of mobilisation.' When he receives the second message, each dominion would take whatever steps it had decided upon for a time of war. A military defence scheme for Australia had, partly on suggestion from the Imperial General Staff, been worked on, first by General Bridges but of late by Major White. It dealt, however, purely with precautions to be taken in Australia. Major White had not been allowed to work at any scheme for supporting Britain. But one Labour minister, Senator George Foster Pearce, who had charge of the Defence Department during the Fisher regime, had agreed to elaborating a scheme for joint defence with New Zealand. Under this fact, Australia and New Zealand would furnish between them one infantry division, the only force of such size envisaged in the defence plans of these southern Dominions. For that reason the Ministers made the decision that Australia must offer: 'to 1) place Australia's Navy under the British, admiralty and to 2) despatch a force of 20,000 men of any suggested composition to any destination desired by the Home government, and to maintain it there.' The offer was immediately announced, and was accepted by the British government asking that the force should be sent as soon as possible.
It could be said that had Britain, despite its pledges, held out of the war, the loyalty of the oversea Dominions to it would hardly have survived the shock to the Empire's honour. In the days when that decision was doubtful, and when it was obviously desir-able that Britain's influence in any negotiations or decisions should carry the greatest possible weight, all the great self-governing Dominions would independently decide to strengthen its hand by free offers of military support. Although in the international con-ditions of that time, all their foreign relations were 'conducted' through Great Britain. 'If Great Britain were at war, then automatically by the law of nations Canada, Austra-lia, New Zealand, and South Africa were at war also. But it depended on the will of each of the dominions within the Empire how far it should actively support the mother country in such war.' Each Dominion would be at war if the mother country (Britain) asked for it. Not one of them was obliged to raise a soldier or sailor or move a ship in any effort against the common enemy. As reported by Charles Bean, July 29th, each Dominion received from Britain a telegram (in the form specified in their defence schemes) warning them that war was imminent, and that certain precautions should be taken. It became obvious that, if the British government was to be assured of support, the assurance should be given at once. 'July 30th, New Zealand regularly first in such crises-offered to send a force of troops if need arose. On July 31st the Canadian gov-ernment promised the fullest aid.' In Australia, Cabinet Ministers were busy election-eering. The Minister for Defence, Senator E. D. Millen, promised that Australia 'was no fair-weather partner' in the Empire, but of all Australians it was the leader of the Labour opposition, Mr Andrew Fisher, who - though he knew nothing of the warning message -gave the Mother Country the most comforting pledge, that Australia was with Britain to the 'last man and last shilling' .
Andrew Fischer indicates that he wants Australia to show its loyalty to its Mother Country, even though it had no interest in participating in a war. In Charles Bean's journal, the Governor, General Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson, suggested to the Prime Minister, Mr Joseph Cook, that he should call a Cabinet meeting in order that the Brit-ish government might know what support it might expect from the Australian govern-ment. In the meantime the preliminary steps were taken. The Australian squadron was directed to Sydney for coaling and other preparation. On August 2nd the 'first stage' of mobilisation was ordered. And on the 3rd the Federal Cabinet met in Melbourne and called in representatives of its Army and Navy. The Canadian government was reported to have offered to send 30,000 troops. The Prime Minister asked the military staff offi-cer at the Cabinet meeting whether any plans existed for sending an expeditionary force from Australia.
Thus, the scheme was ready by August 8th, and, on the l0th, recruiting was opened by proclamation. Bridges, with an eye on the initials which he knew would be used for its name, called the new army the Australian Imperial Force, the 'A.I.F.'. It was intended to sail for Europe. A.I.F was to be drawn from men who had undergone some training. Half of them were serving in the citizen army of Australia-mainly youngsters in their twentieth year and upwards. The other half were not in the forces but who had once been in the armed force or had served in the South African or other wars. Thus this A.I.F defence was the beginning of the story of ANZAC.
Some argue that Australia was facing a difficult situation, a situation that was not easy for it to make the final decision. Because seeing that almost all the other Dominions were ready to offer their own troops for Britain, it would be difficult for Australia not to offer its own troops. However, the reasons why young Australians participated in the war, might, firstly, be because of the 'defence scheme' but, also, another reason could possibly be considered. It is that Australians were fighting for their own country. 'It was often referred to as Australia's baptism by fire. The notion of sacrifice was key in the nobility of the act. In 1915 one officer spoke proudly of Australia having leapt into -Nationhood, Brotherhood and Sacrifice in one bound.' Even though they knew that the fight was not what they wanted to have, they still felt that they had the honour. This event came to identify Australian manhood, heroics and national character. 'Bean judged, was the discovery of the character of Australian men. It was the character which rushed the hills at Gallipoli and held there during the long afternoon and night.' People will memorialise their values - mateship, toughness and a preparedness to stand up to bullies and to stand up to oppressors. As it was being defined: 'A friend, pal, or comrade, synonymous with cobber; a white man who runs straight.' The event made their national identity.
Britain attacked Gallipoli because it should use a military encampment place. Gal-lipoli was the island that would be easy for them to capture the target city, Istanbul. However, because of this reason, Gallipoli became a place to be commemorated.
From the Australian point of view the fight in Gallipoli was seen as a battle of allegiance, mateship and relationship. The high-minded and progressive men who were among the early leaders in most of the colonies often nursed the vague hope that their virgin communities would be able to seclude themselves from the world, living without concern in its disputes, freed by their isolation from the danger of war or the need for army or navy. This had been particularly the case with Australia as well. Therefore, it could also be argued that Australians was fighting for its mother country, Britain, and not for its own country. 'As material for a legend in which Australians were still loyal to the Empire but mature enough to be full partners in it, Gallipoli suited very well, failures and all.' As mentioned above, although in the international conditions of that time, all their foreign relations were 'conducted' through Great Britain. As history shows Anzac was not even led by Australian command but by the British generals Hamilton and Birdwood.
Australians recognised that they were intimately affected, not only by the wealth of the world, in which they had every desire to share, but by its poverty. It was brought home to them that they were involved in its reciprocal relations. They could not afford the indifference which sometimes comes with strength. As it was said: 'The soldiers personified Australian manhood. To be an Australian bloke now meant to be -tough and inventive, loyal to...mates beyond the call of duty, a bit undisciplined ...chivalrous, gallant, sardonic.'
Because of the reciprocal relationship, allegiance, solidarity, the amount of heavy soldier casualties under the battle, the problematic solutions, which Australia had to confront with, Gallipoli, thus, became a memorable battle place. This big event, which could not be changed, did not only give the next generation a new view of their own country, but made Australians to be proud of their own country as well. Also, the battle of Gallipoli created the Anzac Corps which influenced the next generations subse-quently.
Anzac Day Becoming a National Day
ANZAC Day marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces. The date, 25 April, was officially named ANZAC Day in 1916. In that year it was marked by a wide variety of ceremonies and services in Australia and New Zealand. It is commemorated by Australia and New Zealand on 25 April every year to remember members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) that in the Battle of Gallipoli landed at Gallipoli in Turkey during the Great War.
However, Anzac corps was originally from Birdwood's Corps. It had thus established a foothold - it had been called a bridgehead - on the Peninsula. 'By May 1st, the New Zealand and Australian Division under General Godley was allotted the left third of the front. Birdwood obtained leave to call the place by the code-name of his corps, ANZAC-Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, though originally devised by one of Birdwood's English clerks, Lieutenant A. T. White, while the Corps was at Cairo, came into general use.' 'The bay and the half-mile of beach between the two shelter-ing knolls, crammed like a busy port with the food, fodder, ammunition, engineers' stores, dressing stations, pack mules and offices of the Corps, were named 'Anzac Cove'' . 'At 4.30 am on Sunday, April 25th, the Australians landed at Ari Burnu.'
As reported by Charles Bean, the Anzacs were under the harsh and terrifying con-ditions. The soldiers bearing the nationality of Australia did fight bravely. The thought of trying to tow the 11th Battalion, which had 200 yards of water to cross before they touched the beach, would make the these soldiers petrified. The landing on Gallipoli Island succeeded with brave and risk. They never knew that the landing would have brought up the title Anzac Day which became a national day as well.
It is being called the national day because the battle does make Australia feel as if they were independent. 'we are at last a nation, with one heart, one soul, and one thrill-ing aspiration.' They participated in the battle because they wanted to show, first of all, constancy to their Mother Country and one might say that the battle was in reality a necessity which they seemed to be bound to fight. Second of all, they would like to make people be aware that Australia was able to fight. It was the proof Australia wanted to demonstrate and one might say that the battle is seen as a 'revolution'. Aus-tralia was a country 'which has had its moments of nationalist charm and ardour, even glory, though no full-scale revolution: violence vented on the Aborigines instead.'
It was the 'Australian touch'. Australia at last had a little to point to. They could show the rest of the world as proof of their strength of national character. The Australians had proven itself equal to the rest of the world. Australia became a 'nation'.
Conclusion
Despite all of this debate, it could be concluded with an explanation of why Australia acted as it had, and has Australia's action changed the society? If it has, what kind of society had it developed Australia into?
That allegiance, Australians had to the Mother Country, was unlike today because at that time most Australians felt they were more British than Australian. Because of that allegiance, Australia became involved in the Great War and became the eternal remembrance. However, it has never been the Australian way to stand aside and leave the hard work to others. Whether close to home in Asia and the South Pacific or far off in Europe and the Middle East, Australians have understood that peace and security are a collective good and therefore, a collective responsibility. Those young Australians who went to Gallipoli were, it's true, driven partly by their loyalty to Britain and the British Empire, but from their own words, they knew that the interests of their own new nation were very much engaged by the titanic struggle then under way in Europe. They understood that, if they failed to win the war, their lives and the lives of their families and their friends - even on the other side of the world - would change. They also knew that freedom, sovereignty and prosperity of their countries would be diminished. They would also know that they would be diminished, and this they were not prepared to accept.
Increasingly, Australian society is characterised by the culture of public display of patriotism and allegiance, of faith and of wealth. It is said that Australians have lost their critical faculties, politicians tripping over one another to praise the fallen heroes, media outlets whipping up patriotic fervour. The history of Australia's invasion of Turkey in 1915 as part of the British Empire has been airbrushed from public memory. Anzac Day has been emptied of its historical context and is conveniently remembered as a story of Aussies coming valiantly of age.
Australians are encouraged to see the most powerful expression of their identity and values in the field of military endeavour through the memory of the Anzacs or the deeds of the soldiers abroad. As John Howard put it on Anzac Day 2003: 'We stand here to honour sacrifice. We do so because sacrifice is an uncommon virtue. And a vir-tue that we, successive generations of Australians can take from and learn from and in a much smaller way return. It is difficult to leave those who have paid so high a price.' The focused eyes that Australians have towards that day on the beach at Gallipoli could be compared to September 11th 2001, which will remain in American history. Ameri-cans died that day as sacrifices for something out of their control but the memoirs will live on forever.
Also, for instance, the Australian Government funded a report, aimed specifically at finding ways to involve younger Australians in the rituals and commemorations of Anzac Day. Through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Government will also fund the expansion of Anzac Day initiatives in schools, awarding cash prizes for Anzac-related activities in all primary and secondary schools. 'Our mission is to support those who serve or have served in defence of our nation and commemorate their service and sacrifice.' Anzac Day is being seen as a prominent symbol of patriotism by the Australians. The Government tries to keep this national 'spirit' alive from generation to generation. They will keep Anzac Day in mind forever. Also, Australians praise Anzac Day and 'being there' at Anzac Cove on April 25th because it has become among the primary means of displaying patriotism and loyalty in Australia. The Anzac myth has expanded to the point where it has become one of the most important binding agents of their community.
Conversely, it could be argued that the Anzac spirit is not uniquely Australian. It is universal. At its best, it is not a national but a human quality. It is also found in Pales-tine and Iraq, in Darfur and East Timor, in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. If it lives, it lives far from the flag-waving and breast-beating nationalism of recent times, far from the celebration of the national values and the birth of the Australian nation. People say it is a national identity only for Australia, however, it is true, but it could also be argued that Anzac Day is an international spirit, because, as mentioned above, it is a human quality.
Furthermore, one might say that Britain gave Australia the 'opportunity' to partici-pate in the Great War. It could be argued that for Australia, a 'young' nation that was so attached to Britain with little nationalism and cultural identity of its own at that time, the war was Australia's 'opportunity' to prove itself on the world's stage. As a lieuten-ant wrote: 'It is going to be Australia's chance and she makes a tradition out of this that she must always look back on. God grant it will be a great one' As a result, Gallipoli, which the British wanted to make it as an encampment place, became a famous pl
Hi,
Please could you help me correct my essay and explain the mistakes?
Thank you!
The essay: ANZAC and National Identity
Introduction
The Australian and New Zealand army corps, ANZAC, ended in stalemate, defeat and eventually evacuation. Anzac soldiers, who fought bravely, had lost the Battle of Gal-lipoli. Their mission to assist Britain to capture Istanbul and knock Turkey out of the war could be said that it was not a success. However, people, today, try to remember ANZAC as their national symbol. They are proud of the name 'ANZAC' that endures to this day. According to the Australia's official war historian Charles Bean, ANZAC developed an Australian concept of ANZAC Spirit in the post-World War I period among returned servicemen, who had the opinion of the ANZACs changing from an Edwardian conception of Australia within Empire to a tolerance of larrikinism.
Charles Bean was an Australian journalist, war correspondent and historian. He had been one of the engagements involving Australian troops and, in that sense, saw more action than any other Australian in the Great War. On the assumption of his journal I will discuss Australian's national identity and ANZAC. The theme, which I will discuss in this essay, is the fundamental values and interests which spurred these young Australians to do what they did on the other side of the world more than 90 years ago, remain the values and interests that animate the societies today and are at the core of the contemporary Australia patriotism and alliance. They explain why the ANZAC re-membrance is still so prominent than it has ever been, more than 50 years since World War I.
Anzac and Australia's Position at the Outbreak of the Great War
As we know ANZAC was an army corps of Australia and New Zealand troops that in the Great War at Gallipoli fought against the Turks. ANZAC came to stand not just for the troops in World War I but also for Australian and New Zealand soldiers in time of war. There were three Australian and one New Zealand brigades that were employed as infantry with ANZAC during the Gallipoli campaign. One of the Australian brigades, the 2nd Division, began to arrive from Australia in August 1915 and some battalions saw action on Gallipoli in the final months of the campaign.
In Charles Bean's journal, it could be envisaged what had happened to Anzac and how the whole event of the Gallipoli battle had been. In his journal Charles Bean had reported about the Australian 'Defence Scheme'. As one might presume the 'Defence Scheme' might be the main reason for the establishment of the Anzac Corps. 'During the arrangements made at the Imperial Conferences, the Committee of Imperial Defence, in supporting the dominions to draw up their 'Defence Schemes', had ar-ranged some warnings which should be sent to them by the British Government when there was danger of war.' The Committee of Imperial Defence made two warning mes-sages. These two messages would be sent in times of danger by the British Government to the Governor-General of each dominion. The first message was: 'imminent danger of war' , the second was: 'if war arrived, notifying the fact.' Once the Governor-General of each dominion receives the first message, the Government of the dominion would: 'if it thought fit, order the 'precautionary stage of mobilisation.' When he receives the second message, each dominion would take whatever steps it had decided upon for a time of war. A military defence scheme for Australia had, partly on suggestion from the Imperial General Staff, been worked on, first by General Bridges but of late by Major White. It dealt, however, purely with precautions to be taken in Australia. Major White had not been allowed to work at any scheme for supporting Britain. But one Labour minister, Senator George Foster Pearce, who had charge of the Defence Department during the Fisher regime, had agreed to elaborating a scheme for joint defence with New Zealand. Under this fact, Australia and New Zealand would furnish between them one infantry division, the only force of such size envisaged in the defence plans of these southern Dominions. For that reason the Ministers made the decision that Australia must offer: 'to 1) place Australia's Navy under the British, admiralty and to 2) despatch a force of 20,000 men of any suggested composition to any destination desired by the Home government, and to maintain it there.' The offer was immediately announced, and was accepted by the British government asking that the force should be sent as soon as possible.
It could be said that had Britain, despite its pledges, held out of the war, the loyalty of the oversea Dominions to it would hardly have survived the shock to the Empire's honour. In the days when that decision was doubtful, and when it was obviously desir-able that Britain's influence in any negotiations or decisions should carry the greatest possible weight, all the great self-governing Dominions would independently decide to strengthen its hand by free offers of military support. Although in the international con-ditions of that time, all their foreign relations were 'conducted' through Great Britain. 'If Great Britain were at war, then automatically by the law of nations Canada, Austra-lia, New Zealand, and South Africa were at war also. But it depended on the will of each of the dominions within the Empire how far it should actively support the mother country in such war.' Each Dominion would be at war if the mother country (Britain) asked for it. Not one of them was obliged to raise a soldier or sailor or move a ship in any effort against the common enemy. As reported by Charles Bean, July 29th, each Dominion received from Britain a telegram (in the form specified in their defence schemes) warning them that war was imminent, and that certain precautions should be taken. It became obvious that, if the British government was to be assured of support, the assurance should be given at once. 'July 30th, New Zealand regularly first in such crises-offered to send a force of troops if need arose. On July 31st the Canadian gov-ernment promised the fullest aid.' In Australia, Cabinet Ministers were busy election-eering. The Minister for Defence, Senator E. D. Millen, promised that Australia 'was no fair-weather partner' in the Empire, but of all Australians it was the leader of the Labour opposition, Mr Andrew Fisher, who - though he knew nothing of the warning message -gave the Mother Country the most comforting pledge, that Australia was with Britain to the 'last man and last shilling' .
Andrew Fischer indicates that he wants Australia to show its loyalty to its Mother Country, even though it had no interest in participating in a war. In Charles Bean's journal, the Governor, General Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson, suggested to the Prime Minister, Mr Joseph Cook, that he should call a Cabinet meeting in order that the Brit-ish government might know what support it might expect from the Australian govern-ment. In the meantime the preliminary steps were taken. The Australian squadron was directed to Sydney for coaling and other preparation. On August 2nd the 'first stage' of mobilisation was ordered. And on the 3rd the Federal Cabinet met in Melbourne and called in representatives of its Army and Navy. The Canadian government was reported to have offered to send 30,000 troops. The Prime Minister asked the military staff offi-cer at the Cabinet meeting whether any plans existed for sending an expeditionary force from Australia.
Thus, the scheme was ready by August 8th, and, on the l0th, recruiting was opened by proclamation. Bridges, with an eye on the initials which he knew would be used for its name, called the new army the Australian Imperial Force, the 'A.I.F.'. It was intended to sail for Europe. A.I.F was to be drawn from men who had undergone some training. Half of them were serving in the citizen army of Australia-mainly youngsters in their twentieth year and upwards. The other half were not in the forces but who had once been in the armed force or had served in the South African or other wars. Thus this A.I.F defence was the beginning of the story of ANZAC.
Some argue that Australia was facing a difficult situation, a situation that was not easy for it to make the final decision. Because seeing that almost all the other Dominions were ready to offer their own troops for Britain, it would be difficult for Australia not to offer its own troops. However, the reasons why young Australians participated in the war, might, firstly, be because of the 'defence scheme' but, also, another reason could possibly be considered. It is that Australians were fighting for their own country. 'It was often referred to as Australia's baptism by fire. The notion of sacrifice was key in the nobility of the act. In 1915 one officer spoke proudly of Australia having leapt into -Nationhood, Brotherhood and Sacrifice in one bound.' Even though they knew that the fight was not what they wanted to have, they still felt that they had the honour. This event came to identify Australian manhood, heroics and national character. 'Bean judged, was the discovery of the character of Australian men. It was the character which rushed the hills at Gallipoli and held there during the long afternoon and night.' People will memorialise their values - mateship, toughness and a preparedness to stand up to bullies and to stand up to oppressors. As it was being defined: 'A friend, pal, or comrade, synonymous with cobber; a white man who runs straight.' The event made their national identity.
Britain attacked Gallipoli because it should use a military encampment place. Gal-lipoli was the island that would be easy for them to capture the target city, Istanbul. However, because of this reason, Gallipoli became a place to be commemorated.
From the Australian point of view the fight in Gallipoli was seen as a battle of allegiance, mateship and relationship. The high-minded and progressive men who were among the early leaders in most of the colonies often nursed the vague hope that their virgin communities would be able to seclude themselves from the world, living without concern in its disputes, freed by their isolation from the danger of war or the need for army or navy. This had been particularly the case with Australia as well. Therefore, it could also be argued that Australians was fighting for its mother country, Britain, and not for its own country. 'As material for a legend in which Australians were still loyal to the Empire but mature enough to be full partners in it, Gallipoli suited very well, failures and all.' As mentioned above, although in the international conditions of that time, all their foreign relations were 'conducted' through Great Britain. As history shows Anzac was not even led by Australian command but by the British generals Hamilton and Birdwood.
Australians recognised that they were intimately affected, not only by the wealth of the world, in which they had every desire to share, but by its poverty. It was brought home to them that they were involved in its reciprocal relations. They could not afford the indifference which sometimes comes with strength. As it was said: 'The soldiers personified Australian manhood. To be an Australian bloke now meant to be -tough and inventive, loyal to...mates beyond the call of duty, a bit undisciplined ...chivalrous, gallant, sardonic.'
Because of the reciprocal relationship, allegiance, solidarity, the amount of heavy soldier casualties under the battle, the problematic solutions, which Australia had to confront with, Gallipoli, thus, became a memorable battle place. This big event, which could not be changed, did not only give the next generation a new view of their own country, but made Australians to be proud of their own country as well. Also, the battle of Gallipoli created the Anzac Corps which influenced the next generations subse-quently.
Anzac Day Becoming a National Day
ANZAC Day marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by Australian and New Zealand forces. The date, 25 April, was officially named ANZAC Day in 1916. In that year it was marked by a wide variety of ceremonies and services in Australia and New Zealand. It is commemorated by Australia and New Zealand on 25 April every year to remember members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) that in the Battle of Gallipoli landed at Gallipoli in Turkey during the Great War.
However, Anzac corps was originally from Birdwood's Corps. It had thus established a foothold - it had been called a bridgehead - on the Peninsula. 'By May 1st, the New Zealand and Australian Division under General Godley was allotted the left third of the front. Birdwood obtained leave to call the place by the code-name of his corps, ANZAC-Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, though originally devised by one of Birdwood's English clerks, Lieutenant A. T. White, while the Corps was at Cairo, came into general use.' 'The bay and the half-mile of beach between the two shelter-ing knolls, crammed like a busy port with the food, fodder, ammunition, engineers' stores, dressing stations, pack mules and offices of the Corps, were named 'Anzac Cove'' . 'At 4.30 am on Sunday, April 25th, the Australians landed at Ari Burnu.'
As reported by Charles Bean, the Anzacs were under the harsh and terrifying con-ditions. The soldiers bearing the nationality of Australia did fight bravely. The thought of trying to tow the 11th Battalion, which had 200 yards of water to cross before they touched the beach, would make the these soldiers petrified. The landing on Gallipoli Island succeeded with brave and risk. They never knew that the landing would have brought up the title Anzac Day which became a national day as well.
It is being called the national day because the battle does make Australia feel as if they were independent. 'we are at last a nation, with one heart, one soul, and one thrill-ing aspiration.' They participated in the battle because they wanted to show, first of all, constancy to their Mother Country and one might say that the battle was in reality a necessity which they seemed to be bound to fight. Second of all, they would like to make people be aware that Australia was able to fight. It was the proof Australia wanted to demonstrate and one might say that the battle is seen as a 'revolution'. Aus-tralia was a country 'which has had its moments of nationalist charm and ardour, even glory, though no full-scale revolution: violence vented on the Aborigines instead.'
It was the 'Australian touch'. Australia at last had a little to point to. They could show the rest of the world as proof of their strength of national character. The Australians had proven itself equal to the rest of the world. Australia became a 'nation'.
Conclusion
Despite all of this debate, it could be concluded with an explanation of why Australia acted as it had, and has Australia's action changed the society? If it has, what kind of society had it developed Australia into?
That allegiance, Australians had to the Mother Country, was unlike today because at that time most Australians felt they were more British than Australian. Because of that allegiance, Australia became involved in the Great War and became the eternal remembrance. However, it has never been the Australian way to stand aside and leave the hard work to others. Whether close to home in Asia and the South Pacific or far off in Europe and the Middle East, Australians have understood that peace and security are a collective good and therefore, a collective responsibility. Those young Australians who went to Gallipoli were, it's true, driven partly by their loyalty to Britain and the British Empire, but from their own words, they knew that the interests of their own new nation were very much engaged by the titanic struggle then under way in Europe. They understood that, if they failed to win the war, their lives and the lives of their families and their friends - even on the other side of the world - would change. They also knew that freedom, sovereignty and prosperity of their countries would be diminished. They would also know that they would be diminished, and this they were not prepared to accept.
Increasingly, Australian society is characterised by the culture of public display of patriotism and allegiance, of faith and of wealth. It is said that Australians have lost their critical faculties, politicians tripping over one another to praise the fallen heroes, media outlets whipping up patriotic fervour. The history of Australia's invasion of Turkey in 1915 as part of the British Empire has been airbrushed from public memory. Anzac Day has been emptied of its historical context and is conveniently remembered as a story of Aussies coming valiantly of age.
Australians are encouraged to see the most powerful expression of their identity and values in the field of military endeavour through the memory of the Anzacs or the deeds of the soldiers abroad. As John Howard put it on Anzac Day 2003: 'We stand here to honour sacrifice. We do so because sacrifice is an uncommon virtue. And a vir-tue that we, successive generations of Australians can take from and learn from and in a much smaller way return. It is difficult to leave those who have paid so high a price.' The focused eyes that Australians have towards that day on the beach at Gallipoli could be compared to September 11th 2001, which will remain in American history. Ameri-cans died that day as sacrifices for something out of their control but the memoirs will live on forever.
Also, for instance, the Australian Government funded a report, aimed specifically at finding ways to involve younger Australians in the rituals and commemorations of Anzac Day. Through the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Government will also fund the expansion of Anzac Day initiatives in schools, awarding cash prizes for Anzac-related activities in all primary and secondary schools. 'Our mission is to support those who serve or have served in defence of our nation and commemorate their service and sacrifice.' Anzac Day is being seen as a prominent symbol of patriotism by the Australians. The Government tries to keep this national 'spirit' alive from generation to generation. They will keep Anzac Day in mind forever. Also, Australians praise Anzac Day and 'being there' at Anzac Cove on April 25th because it has become among the primary means of displaying patriotism and loyalty in Australia. The Anzac myth has expanded to the point where it has become one of the most important binding agents of their community.
Conversely, it could be argued that the Anzac spirit is not uniquely Australian. It is universal. At its best, it is not a national but a human quality. It is also found in Pales-tine and Iraq, in Darfur and East Timor, in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. If it lives, it lives far from the flag-waving and breast-beating nationalism of recent times, far from the celebration of the national values and the birth of the Australian nation. People say it is a national identity only for Australia, however, it is true, but it could also be argued that Anzac Day is an international spirit, because, as mentioned above, it is a human quality.
Furthermore, one might say that Britain gave Australia the 'opportunity' to partici-pate in the Great War. It could be argued that for Australia, a 'young' nation that was so attached to Britain with little nationalism and cultural identity of its own at that time, the war was Australia's 'opportunity' to prove itself on the world's stage. As a lieuten-ant wrote: 'It is going to be Australia's chance and she makes a tradition out of this that she must always look back on. God grant it will be a great one' As a result, Gallipoli, which the British wanted to make it as an encampment place, became a famous pl