ANZAC or Anzac?

[Lang]

Tony

I don't think the Kiwis find ANZAC/Anzac objectionable. I do think they are entitled to be a little miffed about their entire removal from the history in many Australian ceremonies and talks on the subject - reference the Helen Clarke bridge story.

You would get a fight in a bar that there were ANY French involved in the Gallipoli campaign let alone that they lost 25% more people than the Australians and the Poms losing 3 times as many would come as a total shock.

The term ANZAC/Anzac, whatever spelling, was not a signals code but just another of hundreds of military acronyms. The mysterious chap who is credited with suggesting the abbreviation would have almost certainly been someone on the very first day the formation title was devised in a headquarters somewhere. No sensible person would continue to write a five word title continuously through any document and the military, with their love of acronyms, certainly would have had it abbreviated immediately- probably even by the person/s who invented the name for the formation.

Lang

[Dianaa]

Hi Lang

I don't think the numerical statistics are a consideration in the commemoration of the Gallipoli campaign, the issues for the Kiwis and Aussies are that they were in a separate location to forces of other nations put ashore at the wrong beach by the Royal Navy.

The significance of the campaigns for both countries and for the (post Ottoman) Turkish for that matter was that it was the first occasion where they fought as soldiers of relatively young nations and no longer as colonies administered from London. It is seen by many as the birth of national identies for all three countries.

These are not aspects of consideration when discussing European nations like the UK or France.

[Lang]

You are right about the significance to the two countries in establishing some sort of independent identity (while still fighting a war under command of the mother country). While always aware that one should barrack for the home team I think we should try to keep things in perspective and recognise the efforts of the others on the field, in any conflict, including the enemy.

As far as the long term myth about the ANZAC force going ashore at the wrong beach, General Bridges maps show Ari Burnu (the little bump on the north end of ANZAC Cove)quite clearly being included in the invasion with ANZAC Cove and North Beach either side of it as the beach head.

There was an excellent TV documentary last week on this subject which demonstrated how much the British knew about the Turkish positions from Aerial observation. The Anzacs went ashore silently with relatively little opposition. The smart diversionary approach by the British to the north held the Turkish main reserve back allowing the ANZACs a free kick to get about 8,000 men ashore before Ataturk overstepped his authority and committed the local Turkish reserve. It was all downhill for the invaders after that.

The British decided to announce their arrival with a naval barrage and as a result were slaughtered in the Clyde operation.

North Beach became the centre of operations and is where the memorial services are held today.

Lang

[Dianaa]

Hi lang

I remember recently a doco on the Hitler Channel talking about mapping the invasion beaches and one officer recommending against the site that is now Anzac Cove because of exactly the steep inclines the troops would have to endure after landing. Sorry I don't remember the name of the doco or the officer involved.

Diana

[Lang]

Diana

The slopes behind ANZAC Cove are actually more broken and easily climbed than behind North Beach (I have climbed both). The thick bushes seemed to be a major problem as the troops ran around in a shambolic way unable to see each other and the officers unable to maintain control. It is reported that a few people actually got to the top of the hill but had insufficient organisation or force to hold any high ground.

The whole point of the exercise was to get to the top of the hill and you can't do that without climbing into overlooking defensive positions at some stage. As I mentioned above the ANZAC force knew in very fine detail where all the Turkish defensive positions were from aerial surveillance in the days before the attack. It was Mustafa Kemel (Ataturk) throwing in the substantial Turkish reserve to reinforce the fairly sparse known defensive positions that turned the tide. In the whole sorry expedition the Kiwis were the ones who came closest to getting to the crest but after a hugely courageous and costly effort, they too failed.

Lang

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

There was an excellent TV documentary last week on this subject

Yes it's the 2012 doco Gallipoli From Above: The Untold Story. It's compulsory viewing for every Australian and New Zealander and should be shown in schools. You cannot speak credibly about Gallipoli without the facts contained in this doco. Everything we've been taught since the cradle is complete garbage.

[Lynn Eades]

For myself, I have learned a fair bit from this thread and have to say that my previous uneducated view, with regards the use of the acronym "ANZAC" and the word "Anzac", has resulted in a position shift. I now understand that there is no bias in the use of the word "Anzac".
Peace comes from understanding.

Strange we are, that join the forces, to uphold peace, and develop a passion for the equipment of war.

[Tony Wheeler]

I've certainly learned a lot myself as a result of this thread Lynn. To be honest I wasn't even aware of this issue until Mike raised it here. By pure coincidence I'd just been helping my sister draft a letter about Anzac Day and I noticed she spelt it ANZAC Day, but I didn't give it a second thought until I saw Mike's post next day. I thought she might find it interesting so I copied it to her by email, and judging by her reply she'd never given it any thought either: "Now THERE is a can of worms for me, having been an editor, working at the AWM, etc. - let's put on agenda for when we get together!" Maybe she picked up the habit at AWM.

Personally I'm always suspicious of attempts to control language, and the more I looked into this one the more it looked like political correctness to me, at the expense of history. It's well intentioned but as we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The surprising thing for me is that the RSL are so insistent on the use of ANZAC, even for biscuits. They've completely eradicated the word Anzac from their website.

There's an interesting parallel going on in Israel where they object to the trivialization of the word Nazi: "Israel is on the brink of banning the N-word. N as in Nazi, that is. Parliament gave preliminary approval on Wednesday to a bill that would make it a crime to call someone a Nazi..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/wo...ions.html?_r=0

[motto]

Coincidently I stumbled into this ANZAC/Anzac difficulty all on my own today when I e-mailed an American before even being aware of this thread. (I've been away from home for two weeks).
In the letter I mentioned Anzac Day. As I was writing to somebody who had most likely never heard of it I explained that it was like their Veteran's Day. I then went on to give a break down of the title i.e. (ANZAC - Australian & New Zealand Army Corp). Having set out what the title stood for I felt compelled to go back and change the Anzac Day to ANZAC Day as I had made it clear that it was an acronym.
In common, spoken usage, Anzac is a word and nobody in conversation would dream of spelling it out. It may defy convention but IMHO it probably depends as much who you are writing to as to whether you use the word or the acronym.
Maybe to save arguments and avoid offending anyone we could use 'anzac'. That's funny, my spell check just tagged that and suggested Anzac?
Frankly, my dear IDGAD. Or is that Idgad? Either way, none of this is worth getting upset about.

David

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

I don't think the Kiwis find ANZAC/Anzac objectionable.

Not ANZAC, just Anzac. Much of the push for ANZAC over Anzac stems from a desire to recognize NZ more fully. The word Anzac when written puts NZ in lower case next to upper case A, which is symbolically insulting. Just like Anz Bank would be symbolically insulting. It's reinforced by actual insult, eg. Helen Clarke bridge incident as you say.

That's why I said earlier: "If we have some gripe across the ditch then let's address it constructively, without engaging in semantics over the word". Which means Australia making much more effort to be inclusive of New Zealand in meaningful ways. There's nothing we can do about the word because that's just the way words are spelt. Another example would be Benelux, the union of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. It's entirely arbitrary, purely because Benelux sounds better than Nebelux or Luxbene or any other combination. Conveniently it also has some positive Latin connotations, ie. bene (good, well) and lux (light).