Britain's Centrality to Australia's Commemoration of War - Essay Example

Britain's centrality to Australia's commemoration of war Name ----------------- Student number ------- Unit name ------------ Unit coordinator ----- Date ------- Introduction When the war broke out and Australia participated, the public domain did not oppose the participation since at that point of time Australia's allegiance to Britain was de facto considered as unobjectionable. However, many decades later it is being debated whether Australia's involvement in the war was or not necessary at all. On geographical context, many scholars argue that Australia's participation in the war served Britain more than the Australia in terms of several interests (Gavin, 2000). But at that point of time it was a matter of compulsion than a choice for Australia to be a war participant with Britain. This is because the nation had recently detached itself from Britain and had emerged a federation in its own right, but since the detachment was fresh any move to refuse participation in the war, thought Australia, would have appeared as a defiant move to Britain. The only benefit of the moment that Australia had to derive was that of not being seen as a defiant nation. That brings one to the most important point. Even as British Empire was seen as central to participation in war, why it is no longer considered central to Australia's commemoration of its involvement in the same. To debate this, the period around the time of war would need to be revisited. That time Australia was very much isolated from Europe; which was considered as the theatre of war then. Australia did not have as widespread means of communication as it has today; it was feeling marginalised. But again that was another reason why it was not supposed to be involved in war on one hand, and at the same time actually compelled to be involved. The compulsion was also mooted in the fact that in case it was attacked, following its participation it would not be difficult for it to gain Britain's reciprocal support. The greatest disadvantage for Australia was its southern hemisphere location; it was sort of tucked away in it and thus lacked the desired safety from the conflict, particularly in the wake of its vast sky and coastline. Had it been attacked, the attack would have largely gone undetected. That forms the background of its participation in the war and its involvement with Britain. Lack of Britain's centrality to Australia's commemoration of war When Australia first went to war on Britain's behest in 1914, Australians greeted its outbreak with relentless enthusiasm. But by 1917, even as Australians reached the peak of their fighting capability on July 4 and until 11 November when Germany surrendered, this was a moment of great triumph but soon the losses were realised too. Australia has had its mammoth share of losses in terms of casualties and deaths. The conflict (or should it be read as the participation in the war) proved to be the most costly for the nation (Garton, 1996). At the time of the war the nation had a population of little less than 5 million out of which 416,809 enlisted for the war. The participation left 156,000 wounded, taken prisoner or gassed and as many as 60,000 dead. However, after the aftermath, it soon began to be realised that in what had been conveyed as a war in Europe, was actually Australia's war in Egypt, since most of Australian soldiers and volunteers accepted to fight the war were sent to Egypt and not Europe, to fight Turkey's Ottoman Empire (Fromkin, 1989). This empire posed serious threats to the British interests in the Suez Canal and the Middle East. For Australian soldiers, unlike their Belgian and French counterparts, fighting in Egypt was like fighting in very hostile conditions that included water shortages, harsh terrain and extreme heat. Even as Britain was central to Australia's participation in this war, Australia seemed to be toiling this on its own, while the war kept mounting causalities on its men. It can be said that that Australia lost its people with no sound reason to do so. This was being felt badly at home; communities and families were left with nothing but to grieve on the loss of their near and dear ones without any apparent gains to the nations. Not only that, but Australia also began to bear the brunt of huge financial and physical burdens. Disenchantment ran large through Australia and when it began to mount, both politically and socially, surveillance and censorship began to be imposed as a means to suppress the political views. This led to the growing social divisions to the extent that in 1916 and 1917, conscription referendums were bitterly contested. As the war began to end, Australia had thousands of ex-servicemen, a majority of them emotionally wounded and physically disabled. People wanted to consign the bitter and an unproductive war, that did have no apparent gains for Australia to the past so that they could resume a normal life, but at the same time began to honour their dead. Britain’s centrality to the war began to be seen in the negative light but since Australia had lost several of its men, they began to be seen as ones deserving due respect after their death. The nation began to honour its men killed during the conflict imposed on it by Britain as the people started re-integrating into what it was a once happy society. The purpose of commemoration of its involvement in the war began to be seen to consider remembrance of the dead than the triumphs of the war elsewhere. The commemoration in Australia, as on date, is seen as an initiative to raise awareness about to highlight more on the negative effects of wars than victories they bring along with. In doing so, Australian probably want to expose the fact that Britain was just as culpable as any other nation involved in the war that inflicted widespread damage on human lives across the world. The country doesn't want to be seen as a Britain-ally of the war but as one that suffered, just as did any other nation in terms of loss of life, due to the fighting. Commemoration has thus become a post facto justification on moral grounds to remember the countrymen lost and not a justification for going to the war in the first place. This can also be seen why Britain no more forms the centrality of Australia’s commemoration of its involvement in war. No morality can justify war and no sane country would like its people to suffer simply on the behest of some other nation. This is one reason when it is impossible to find the Hyde Park memorial empty at any given period of time, particularly on the Anzac Day, when people come here to mourn relatives and friends lost in conflicts that were distant and in reality not their own; but that of Britain. There is a show of spirit of nationalism (Lake, 1992) and the memorial is teeming with activity with motives as diverse as individuals. In other words, the Anzac Day has become more of a national festival for the country. It revolves around the centrality of commemoration now instead of Britain centrality to what happened. This is one reason perhaps why the day is celebrated by every Australian wherever he is and the memorials have become as sort of pilgrimages spots in the country. This also is the day when the nation seizes an opportunity to show its unprecedented secularism marked no less than religious fervour. The commemoration gets close to sacredness as far as it can. (Scates, 2002). On an objective note, Australia does not even need to consider centrality of Britain to the commemoration because the events that led to Australia's participation were more unfortunate in nature than understood by it. It was in a catch-twenty situation in which if dominions and the Britain had stood by and dominance of the continent was achieved by the central powers; it would have been difficult for Australia to escape consequences. The consequences could have been worst particularly with regard to its vulnerable and vast sea line which, by dint of its topography, was Australia's key access to its export market - the market was none other than Britain itself. Max Hastings, a British war historian, has explained this tersely (Walker, 2014). He has remarked the possibility of making a case in which Australia could have better not been a part of this war, irrespective of what. It would have better stayed away from an attempt to either lose or win for Britain and better still it would have been able to retain all those lives that it lost beyond its shores. When the war began, Hastings adds, one may ask did British government consult it before it began it declared one? Australia at this point was an embryonic nation and perhaps on account of that it felt too scared to think of post-war values and issues with Britain had it declined to participate. The result was its own losses and commemoration an attempt at turned an eye away from bad part of history and focussing merely on the sacrifices of its men. Conclusion Britain's centrality can be established in Australia's participation in the war, but not as much in its commemoration now. Of Britain's all dominions, and in proportion to their population, Australia lost more men. It built as many memorials too. It is probably in this irony that in someone else's war a small participant lost more men, whose stature it doesn't want to reduce by furthering centrality of the warring nation in commemoration of its own men. References Fromkin, D. (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Co. Lake, M. (1992). Mission impossible: how men give birth to the Australian nation - gender, nationalism and other seminal acts, Gender and History, 4:3, pp 305-22. Garton, S. (1996). The Cost of War: Australians Return, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Gavin (2000), Lion & Kangaroo: the initiation of Australia, Melbourne: Text Publishing, Scates, B. (2002). In Gallipolis’s Shadow: pilgrimage, memory, mournings and the Great War, Australian Historical Studies, 119, p 8. Walker, J. ( 2014). Can we handle the truth? Available: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/can-we-handle-the-truth/story-e6frg6z6-1226895275114#. Last accessed April 28, 2014. Read More