The Double- Edged Sword

Some would call it an unpatriotic, even disrespectful view. Some would see the logic, yet still claim otherwise. Others would probably agree with the view. Regardless of the criticism the play has recieved: "The History Boys" is a play that made a very interesting point about the British involvement in World War II. I, however, can't help but actually apply that very same view, to Australia's involvement in World War I and World War II.

Irwin, the new teacher at the school, at one point in the play, is speaking to the boys in the grounds. Speaking about the importance of Armistace Day, and why it is celebrated, Irwin states: "There is no better way of forgetting something than by commemmorating it...". An interesting thought says i to this. Why though? More importantly, how can one relate this statement, more to do with the British involvement, with the Australian involvement?

Revisionist views of History claim that it is possible, and in fact very likely, that Germany didn't want war in 1914. However, the arms race that was taking place was being lead by Britain. It is further claimed that Britain was seeking to ensure that their Empire, mainly controlled by its superior Naval power, was not undermined on the European continent. Thus, it was essential for Britain to enter into World War I. These historians would also claim, as Irwin does, that the main reason people take such a negative view of the Great War, as World War I is commonly reffered to, is to "shift" the blame, for want of a better word. As Germany was the sole country "embarrassed" at the signing of the treat of Versailles, most people take the negative view and blame the Germans of 1914, for the massacre and many deaths of World War I.

However, what people tend to forget is that Germans lost their lives too. Whether Germany was fighting a tactical Offensive War against Britain, or a tactical Defensive war against Britain, Germany suffered heavy losses at the end of the Allied artillery. General Sir Douglas Haig, it can be said, was a fool. A "Donkey leading the Lions", as the famous phrase goes. So how does all this relate to the legend of the ANZAC?

Whilst the ANZACs suffered terribly under the questionable leadership of Generals such as Haig, the ANZACs fought nonetheless. Whether they liked, or disliked, the British High Command, Australians were still committed to fighting in World War I. It was not till the end of 1918 when the the Australian Imperial Force, AIF, begun to fall short of troops, becuase people were no longer signing up to fight. During the course of the war, however, the ANZACs still fought and killed, just like the British did, just like the French did, just like the Germans did, just like the Italians did, just like the Russians did. When one takes a step out of the cultural and social traditions which play a significant role in the shaping of "National identity", one may come to realise that all these nations had one thing in common during 1914- 1918...they ALL fought a war, they ALL killed and they ALL suffered heavy losses. It is simply the way history has been dictated by those with the power of control, that meant Germany was blamed for the war in the first place. The signing of the Treat of Versailles meant that Germany's fate was sealed as the "Instigator of War". From then on, whilst many wrote of the "Lions lead by Donkey's" doctrine in regards to General Haig, most history was written, condemning and blaming Germany for the beginning and results of the Great War.

It's interesting how the ANZAC legacy has been created. It blames the British High Command for its decision to send thousands of troops "over the top" at Gallipoli and the Somme, which turned out to be fatal. Moreover, it indirectly blames the Germans for the instigation of World War I. If the Germans hadn't begun increasing and developing their army, then the British would not have seen any threat. This, in turn, would not have sparked a massive arms race between Britain, France and Germany, namely Britain and Germany. This wouldn't have lead many nations to also increase their military capacities, which ultimately lead to the "snapping of tensions", when Germany and Britain finally declared war on one another. The British would not have gone to war, taking with them the ANZACs and other national corps' of the Commonwealth.

Indeed, the saying is true: "It's easier to point the finger rather than turn it 180 degrees the other way". Alas! "There is no better way to forget something than to commemmorate it...". I wish, however, to make one thing ABUNDANTLY clear!
My intentions of this piece was not to disrespect the memory and the honour of the ANZACs. My intention was not to undermine the legacy of mateship, and national pride that was created on the bloody fields of Gallipoli and the Somme. My intention was to inform you, my reader, of the various interpretations of history that exist. Anyone who studies history knows very well that depending on one source alone is "Bad History". History does not only come from one source, nor is it written by one particular source. Indeed, the best history is one that incorporates many. It must be said and NEVER forgotten: the sacrificing of one's own life for the sake of a nation of peoples, barely known to him/ her is a noble sacrifice WORTHY of rememberance. Whether labelled Ally or Enemy, any and every sacrificed life, for the sake of a value, or for the sake of a belief is a noble cause, and a worthy sacrifice which should never be forgotten by the relative nation of peoples.

Thus...They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning...We will remember them! Lest We Forget!