Australia's Contribution to WWI - Anzac Centenary Victorian Government
For soldiers of some of the self-governing British Commonwealth nations, Australia and New Zealand, distance did little to diminish ties with the . Global war in pictures: Indian, African and Middle Eastern involvement >>. Alternative Titles: First World War, Great War, WWI A British soldier inside a trench on the Western Front during World War I, . arbitration, Austria- Hungary promptly severed diplomatic relations and ordered partial mobilization. . Australian War Memorial - First World War 18 · The History. This article examines the Australian press in the First World War. The first cable connection between Britain and Australia was established in Australian George Hubert Wilkins () took motion pictures of the First.
Italy is not that different. Germany is a good bit different. In fact, if you take Germany, the German Empire entering into World War I, or the early s, aroundbetween them and the Russian Empire, they essentially were swallowing up a bunch of linguistic groups right over here that now have their own independent states.
Australia spending $ per dead WWI soldier Germany spending $2
The other thing that you might notice is this huge state called Austria-Hungary, or often called the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And people say, well, there's-- I'm familiar with some of these nations that have the word Austria and Hungary in them, but I'm not-- what is this Austro-Hungarian Empire? And what's interesting about it is it really was an empire. It was really trying to cobble together all of these folks that spoke all different-- all the different types of ethnicities.
World War I to World War II
And the Austro-Hungarian Empire is probably the most important thing to understand if we're trying to get a sense of how World War I started, because leading up to World War I, inthe Austro-Hungarian Empire formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. And that's another confusing thing for many of us, that that's actually one country.
It's called Bosnia and Herzegovina, or I guess for the Austro-Hungarians that was now one region that they annexed. And what's interesting about that is if you look at the linguistic map, you see that this whole region right over here speaks a very similar-- essentially, they're dialects of Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian.
They're all very linguistically and ethnically connected, so this whole region right over here is linguistically and ethnically connected. And what we'll see is, is that this desire to connect people with similar ethnic or linguistic routes-- linguistic backgrounds is what led to a lot of what happened in World War-- or at least was the spark that fueled, that people sometimes say, the powder keg of World War I.
The other thing that was a very different or the other country or nation or empire that we are not used to today is the Ottoman Empire. So if we go today, we see the country of Turkey, which is on the Anatolian Peninsula. So this is Turkey right over here. This is modern-day Turkey. So this right over here is what the Ottoman Empire looked like. This right over here is roughly modern-day Turkey. So much of-- especially, much of the Arab-- especially the Arab world around Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, much of what where modern-day Israel is, some of Saudi Arabia.
- The call of the Empire, the call of the war
- Empires before World War I
- Australia’s Contribution to WWI
And this was really the dying state of the Ottoman Empire. At its peak, it controlled much of the Muslim world.
It controlled Northern Africa as well as all the stuff you see here and even a little bit of Persia and actually a good bit of the Balkans, southeast Europe, and even Greece at the peak of its Ottoman Empire. With the enthusiastic support of the opposition, the new Labor government then passed the War Precautions Act in unprecedented haste on 28 Octoberwhich provided them with wide-ranging powers to extend existing censorship provisions, influence the course of public debate and suppress any potential or actual dissent.
After the war, Official Historian Ernest Scott provided a brief but sweeping panorama of similar measures reaching back to the time of Napoleon to justify the scope of this legislation and the imposition of censorship in Australia, which he described as one of the "unfortunate necessities of warfare. Open debate on the merits and conduct of the war was discouraged, yet the situation should not be exaggerated.Propaganda During World War 1 - Opening Pandora's Box I THE GREAT WAR Special
As Niall Ferguson noted, "[in] no country was the press completely restricted, nor was uniformity ever imposed. In every case, institutions for censoring and managing news had to be improvised and did not work efficiently. It was tolerated by the mainstream press, though even the Argus, as conservative a journal as any in Australia, disliked its purely political aspect.
Outright condemnation of the war in Australia was restricted to smaller scale left-wing or union publications. One such organ was The Labor Call, which greeted the war as something "worked up by a few crowned-heads of Europe, assisted, no doubt by trusts and combines.
But in the heady days of divisions of any sort in the new Commonwealth appeared to have been smoothed out. The Boer Warthe Boxer Rebellionthe Russo-Japanese War and the Balkan Wars were all extensively covered by the international press, the last named conflict seeing the first use of cinematography in conflict reporting as well. Australian George Hubert Wilkins took motion pictures of the First Balkan War in and photographed the fighting from a plane.
In fact, despite the endless acres of newsprint expended upon it at the time, the First World War was arguably less a media war than its immediate predecessors. The international press reported the Great War extensively and for over four years it dominated their output, both in terms of the fighting and domestic issues. What the press did not do was examine it intensively. In Australia that situation was compounded by the strategic control of the war resting firmly in London.
A combination of political and military censorship in all the combatant states, plus the loyal adherence of newspaper proprietors, editors and journalists to their national war efforts, ensured that for much of the war the true nature of the fighting was conveyed to the public fitfully and in a diluted fashion.
The public craved, not unnaturally, news of a war which had drawn in so many of its young men. In many cases, including in Australia, what they regularly received was filtered, delayed or polished up.
When, for example, Australians finally read on 8 May about a fortnight late a newspaper report of the Anzac landing the article was not all rosy — delays in treating the wounded and heavy casualties were mentioned, for example.
The Boer War, especially in its first, most active year, had been covered by a relatively large number of Australian correspondents representing many different newspapers. Reporters in South Africa had complained of the ubiquitous censorship, which some thought was intended to conceal the "awful blunders" and "farcical mistakes"  of the British military, yet this paled before that prevailing in the First World War.
In war journalists were incorporated into the national war machine and were regarded as a link, a potentially suspect one, between the public and their soldiers, not as dispassionate observers. This ended up being Charles Beanwho was elected by his journalist peers in September — an interesting combination of industrial democracy and closing the door on everybody else.
He would later visit Gallipoli briefly but crucially. Other Australian war correspondents were very few in number.
Bean was unique among Australian correspondents in being there for the duration, from Anzac to the last battles Australia fought on the Western Fronta feat which had few parallels elsewhere in the Empire.
Unlike his British counterparts, the tireless and physically brave Bean seemed to be able to go wherever he liked, interviewing, observing, collecting.
In fact, as at Gallipoli, his movements were often controlled more than he liked, but his work rate was astonishing. His articles were seen by some editors as prosaic and were not always published in full or immediately; this occurred as early as the Gallipoli campaign. But Bean was never just a journalist. Of those, 16, were killed and 41, were wounded.
Government spending more than $8800 for every digger killed during WW1
Nor were Australia and Canada directly threatened, yet their losses — roughly 60, dead each — were also extremely painful. What gave them the strength to carry on? After the war, the idea gained ground that, for these adolescent nations, participation was somehow a rite of passage.
The efforts of their young men on the battlefield had proved they were the equal of the mother nation. It was India that stood to gain the most.
Unlike the others, she was completely under British control. At the start of the war, the independence movement including Gandhi offered tactical support in the hope that Britain would feel morally obliged to offer significant concessions when it was over. As it was, the Government of India Bill fell below expectations, granting only a partial franchise. India lost more than 50, men, while at home the poor but not Indian manufacturers and businessmen had endured even greater than usual hardship.
With peace, militancy intensified. Almost half of the eligible male population of Australia enlisted during the war and almost two-thirds of those who served abroad became casualties. As elsewhere, the intensity of their experience made the thought that it had been for nothing all but unendurable and the evidence of their writings suggests most felt they had fought in a just cause.
Yet the war left a legacy of sorrow. War-damaged veterans were a visible reminder of war in Australian society throughout the interwar years. A Canadian gunner and medical officer, John McCrae, wrote the lines forever associated with the tragedy of the Western Front: