The Undisciplined Aussies

[elle72]

Im more amazed by the fact that many diggers seem to have had more of a sense of humour under trying conditions than we seem to do on an Internet forum 90 something years later

Jeez, live a little people!

[George Armstrong Custer]

Im more amazed by the fact that many diggers seem to have had more of a sense of humour under trying conditions than we seem to do on an Internet forum 90 something years later

Jeez, live a little people!

Like I said, the reality of military capital punishment was no laughing matter to the non-aussie element of the British armies in '14-'18.

[Ozzie]

GAC, it didn't matter where they fought or what year, humour of any nature, grim or not, helped get them through. While they starved in Changi, the humour was still there, black and grim and helping them get through it.

[Ozzie]

Ah, now I see where you are at.

Yes, to a Brit it would be seen to be lacking in tact. But this man used those words to help his men survive.

A religious man, not lacking in courage to do the best he could for the men under him. As by the Gov Gen's words.

I shall leave it there, as to go further will definately derail this thread.

Regards

Kim

[truthergw]

Interesting notion that these men were Australian and therefore undisciplined, free spirited with a different sense of humour. Do we have any figures as to how many were actually British born or of British parentage?

[Steven Broomfield]

Tom - I think Bean does have such figures, but I can't be fagged to look them up. The point he does make, and I think it a fair one, is that the British-born members of the AIF were generally from the more adventurous strata of british society - i.e. the ones who had travelled thousands of miles to make a new life, rather than sit at home and moan about how awful life was.

There's probably a lot of truth in that, as there is in looking at South African, Candian or New Zealand troops.

I think the spirit of the AIF was special; as was that of the SA Bde, the Canadian Corps and the NZ Div. That said, we do sometimes appear in danger, 90 years on, of making plaster saints out of our heroes. But then again, celebrating what was good is probably no bad thing, as long as we recall what was bad, too.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I posted this anecdote a few months back:

AussieDecoration

ciao,

GAC

[truthergw]

I don't suppose Bean was Australian, by any chance? The unadventurous, stick in the muds who were left, summoned up enough enthusiasm to form the 3 Kitchener Armies in a few weeks.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Interesting notion that these men were Australian and therefore undisciplined, free spirited with a different sense of humour. Do we have any figures as to how many were actually British born or of British parentage?

A 2003 speech by Australian Prime Minister John Howard gives the figure of twenty two per cent of recruits who embarked for overseas service with the AIF being not native Australian born but drawn from the many hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Celtic immigrants. On top of that, of course, many more will have been first-generation Australians of British parentage. Full text - which is of interest for the emphasis it places on the shared heritage which impelled Britain and Australia to go to war in 1914 - here:

JohnHoward

ciao,

GAC

[Steven Broomfield]

A great-uncle of mine (my father's mother's brother) appears to have been in the AIF, on Gallipoli with (either) the 14th or 15th Battalions. I never met him, but if he was anything like my gran, then all I can say is God help the Kaiser.

[George Armstrong Custer]

If Howard's figure is correct, then almost a quarter of the AIF were British born. If a similar proportion of men had parents who were British born (probably an underestimate), then around half of the AIF were men who had either been born in Britain themselves or whose parents had. The ties that bound Australia and the UK, though undeniably stong to this day, were far more powerful at the outbreak of the Great War.

ciao,

GAC

[Fedelmar]

Never believe what a politician says!

Many of the UK lads were over here earning a quid and sending it back to their families. Australia was a land of plenty back then.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[petrick]

I am a huge admirer of AIF humor. It shows the side of nononsence men and the equalety through ranks. I do love the numbers of comic 's made. An example of the many.

cooee

patrick

[elle72]

Looking back on my original post, I suppose I am looking at a very 'stereotypical' notion of what the diggers were about. Obviously not every digger was a 'laugh a minute' type of guy and not every British officer was guilty of having a 'stiff upper lip'. But I do believe that the Australian men of that generation were of a particular breed, created from an unusual environment.

It is probably difficult for most British people to understand when you have a background of hundreds of years of history behind you which has formed and shaped your nation and your people......

At the time war broke out in 1914, our country was just over 100 years old, and in WA where I come from, it was less than a hundred years old. This was a land of men (and women) which had been colonised as a convict penal settlement, ruled over by a militia who were more corrupt than the convicts or settled by immigrant farmers who were willing to face drought, natives and the unknown for a chance to eke out a better living than what they were barely subsiding on back in Europe.

Establishing a life in this country was hard, back breaking work.....the land was covered in trees, rocks and thick scrub and all of it had to be cleared by hand in order for farms to be established. My great grandfather's family (immigrants from Denmark) lived in tents until they had cleared enough land to build a house. Imagine yourself doing that. Raising a family in a tent while you cut down tree after tree and move each rock by hand......this is the environment my great uncle grew up in and this was how the greater part of our nation was founded.

That kind of environment formed a generation of men who were not afraid of digging in and getting on with hard work, who probably were quite uncivilised and who looked at authority with disdain. Another interesting point is that in Australia in 1900, the average ratio of men to women was 5 men to every 2 women. Its no wonder that a lot of young men spent most of theIR rec time hanging around drinking and playing cards or two up.

In the same way that many British officers looked down on the Australian soldiers and thought they were disreputable and undisciplined and therefore unmanageable, the typical Aussie soldier looked down on the British and thought they were preoccupied by discipline and class and niceties that had no place in the new Australia. Because back home you just got in there and did it or you didn't survive. And if you could play a practical joke on your mate by sticking a goanna down his boots while he was having a swim in the river than that was even better

Anyway thats my two bobs worth. I don't think the larrikin spirit of the colonial troops has anything to do with superiority or better fighting or the fact they weren't executed - it has to do with the environment they came from. They say that Gallipoli shaped our nation and its probably true. We are still a people who don't take things too seriously, who like to crow over the 'poms' when we beat them in cricket and couldn't give a rats *ss about authority or discipline.

And it can't be too bad a way to live because if my suburb is anything to go by, there are more British people living here than there is skips now days btw skips = aussies (skip as in Skippy the bush kangaroo, its an old TV show here - the Australian version of Lassie LOL).

Cheers, Elle

[George Armstrong Custer]

It is probably difficult for most British people to understand when you have a background of hundreds of years of history behind you which has formed and shaped your nation and your people......

Hi Elle,

I think the point being made was that as many as 50% or more of the AIF were either themselves, or had parents who were, born in the UK - therefore they were directly a part of that hundreds of years of history of Britain. Very few indeed of the AIF would have been more than a couple of generations removed from British immigrants. The people who formed and shaped the Australian nation were British, with all the historical and cultural baggage of that nation - including its humour. Whilst the period of the Great War saw an Australian brand of humour emerging, as indeed was the Australian sense of nationhood, they were obviously formed by British people who were either born in Britain or had parents or grand parents who were. Aussie humour is essentially Brit humour with a chippy edge to it, which is maybe not surprising given the early settlement of the colony by convict transports and poor economic migrants. I don't know any Aboriginal jokes, but theirs must surely be the only truly indigenous Australian sense of humour don't you reckon?

ciao,

GAC

[Fedelmar]

There were a lot of Irish including first and second generation.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[truthergw]

" Establishing a life in this country was hard, back breaking work.....the land was covered in trees, rocks and thick scrub and all of it had to be cleared by hand in order for farms to be established. My great grandfather's family (immigrants from Denmark) lived in tents until they had cleared enough land to build a house. Imagine yourself doing that. Raising a family in a tent while you cut down tree after tree and move each rock by hand......this is the environment my great uncle grew up in and this was how the greater part of our nation was founded. "

As it was in the Highlands of Scotland, the valleys of Wales and the bogs of Ireland, very similar climate to Denmark. Australia, Canada, New Zealand were settled mainly by British people who were no strangers to long hours of back breaking toil but who relished the chance to do it for themselves rather than an absentee landlord. Before you get carried away on an upsurge of rugged pioneerism, people were living in luxury in the cities of Australia when people in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were still living in black houses and turf cabins. Ploughing the land without animals, scrabbling in the mines for coal and subsisting in unimaginable poverty. The cost of a passage to the colonies was not even a distant dream. Only the lucky ones could afford it.

[IanA]

Off at a tangent, I know, but there are obviously folks on this thread who know much more about Australian involvement in the Great War than I do - I came across this apparently genuine discussion on the ANZAC myth:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s281903.htm

Can anyone tell me whether these characters are taken seriously? I've looked for an 'ANZAC myth' thread on the forum but I can't find one.

[59165]

Just read it,Ian.

"No other Army had volunteers"?????

What the smeg is that all about?

[IanA]

"No other Army had volunteers"?????

What the smeg is that all about?

No-one batted an eyelid!!

[59165]

Calls hisself a prof.of WW1?

I'll bat his eyelid

[George Armstrong Custer]

There were a lot of Irish including first and second generation.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

Indeed. Which is why I quoted Howard's reference to "Anglo-Celtic immigrants."

Dark Mutterings,

GAC

[Ozzie]

The interview with Blair and King is media hype. Get two men with very opposing views and get ratings.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

As for why did the Anzacs do so well or not so well, you would have to study Australian history, and I don't think that is taught in British schools, not like here in Oz, where we were taught British history before our own Australian History. Francis Drake, before learning about the Eureka Stockade. Have you heard of the Eureke Stockade?

It is the history of the country that shape the men in it. Some men of British descent went from Australia to do the right thing for the Mother Country, some men went for an adventure, others did it for reasons that died with them.

One thing is a truth. They did not have to go. They went of their own free will. Scots, Jews, Germans, Irish, Scandinavian, Australian, English, New Zealander's, Maoris, Aboriginals. Note the last two, and ask yourself why would the last two ethnic groups join up? That is the conundrum of Anzac.

And in the records of the enemy, which still stand today, the respect with which they held the AIF's fighting abilities, is there for all to see.

Some obviously have a chip about the Anzacs. How do you think those Anzacs felt about being recorded as British, for many years after the war, after they had forged an identity of their own. Why were the men of the WW2 so proud to be known as Australian and New Zealand troops, not British.

Maybe it takes an Aussie or Kiwi to understand why.

What made those men join up, made those men a feared force on the battlefield, not only in WW1, but subsequent wars.

Why do the French remember the Anzacs, if they were such a rag tag undiscilplined force?

They were men of all types, from all backgrounds, who went to war and suffered, the same as the British, The Canadians, the French, the Indians, the Germans, the Turks, the Russians and all the others who suffered the ravages of war. And as with those other nations, those men, good and the bad, died because of what????

The people of Britian have had their wars, going back many hundreds of years, that helped shaped who they are today.

Why single out the Anzacs, and the young countries, whose men gave their lives for the "Mother " country.

Why? Because we didn't conform to British standards?

Tell that to those who died at Gaza, Gallipoli, Villiers, Passchendale, Pozieres, Mouquet Farm, Somme, Bullecourt, Ypres, Polygon Wood, Jorden Valley, Kemmel, Amiens, and so many more places, tell them why they died, that they were not up to scratch; that they were a rag tag army, of uncouth and undisciplined forces.

If you could talk to them now, you would not like the answer they would give.

And as Bean said

But the Australian Imperial Force is not dead. That famous army of generous men marches still down the long lane of its country's history, with bands playing and rifles slung, with packs on shoulders, white dust on boots, and bayonet scabbards and entrenching tools flapping on countless thighs- As the French country folk and the fellaheen of Egypt knew it.

What these men did nothing can alter now. The good and the bad, The greatness and smallness of their story will stand. Whatever of glory it contains nothing now can lessen. It rises, as it will always rise, above the mists of ages, a monument to great-hearted men; and, for their nation, a possession forever. CEW Bean, Vol VI The A.I.F. in France.

(Underlining is mine.)

You have your Waterloos, your Bannockburns; your proud and famous regiments, and still you try to belittle the Anzac contribution.

The Anzacs did not win the war, but by hell, they gave it a damn good shake, and left a tradition of mateship, loyalty, courage and humour, that has seen their sons and grandsons help the Mother Country in WW2, and go on to help the Allies in other wars of this, and the last century.

Am I proud of our Australian and New Zealand Forces and what they acheived, you bet.

And am I dissapointed that other countries peoples do not make the effort to learn why, you bet I am.

I learnt your country's history, did you learn mine?

Kim

[IanA]

My question re Blair and King was just to clear up whether these jokers were of any consequence in Australia: it was not a point-scoring exercise.

Kim, someone seems to have hit a raw spot - I've just read back through all three pages of this thread and cannot see anyone attempting to belittle the ANZAC achievement. Perhaps you could highlight the calumnies which you clearly see. You ask many questions - I'm not sure I can answer some of them.

Why did all sorts, including aboriginals and maoris, join up? For the same many reasons that the British volunteers joined, I imagine. I have a postcard to a Cameronian sergeant from a fellow sergeant at Hamilton Barracks complaining that all the dregs of Glasgow were at the gates wanting to join up for a square meal, wages and a bed. Others joined up because of nobler ideals.

Why single out the Anzacs? Why indeed. And who?

Have I heard of the Eureke Stockade? No, but I will now go and look it up.

I am no sort of an expert on Australia (hence my question) but I know enough about the war to know that the Australian troops were a fine body of men, very tough fighters indeed, and highly valued by the commanders.

[IanA]

I now know about the Eureke Stockade.