Suchergebnisse

Australia and New Zealand came to World War One with similar political trajectories, and their experience and memory of the war had much in common. However, on the key issue of conscription for overseas military service, they diverged. This article considers possible explanations for this difference. As others have noted, whereas New Zealand Prime Minister William Massey could be confident of a parliamentary majority, the early political power of the labour movement in Australia forced his Australian counterpart, W. M. Hughes, to take conscription to a popular vote—a forum in which the performance of politics and dissent took an unpredictable form. Beyond this, Hughes's chances of gaining consent for conscription were compromised by the timing of the conscription campaigns in Australia—some critical months later than in New Zealand—his personal political style and his failure to craft a scheme of conscription that could secure the majority consent that the more adroit Massey achieved in New Zealand.

Australia and New Zealand came to World War One with similar political trajectories, and their experience and memory of the war had much in common. However, on the key issue of conscription for overseas military service, they diverged. This article considers possible explanations for this difference. As others have noted, whereas New Zealand Prime Minister William Massey could be confident of a parliamentary majority, the early political power of the labour movement in Australia forced his Australian counterpart, W. M. Hughes, to take conscription to a popular vote—a forum in which the performance of politics and dissent took an unpredictable form. Beyond this, Hughes's chances of gaining consent for conscription were compromised by the timing of the conscription campaigns in Australia—some critical months later than in New Zealand—his personal political style and his failure to craft a scheme of conscription that could secure the majority consent that the more adroit Massey achieved in New Zealand.

This article examines what motivated the dominions to make such a sustained and costly contribution to the war effort of the British empire during the First World War. With particular reference to Australia, it argues that imperial loyalty, now discounted as anachronistic, was the dominant ideology. Not only did it inspire the initial generous support for the British war effort but, for many Australians, the empire's cause invested with meaning the battle losses which were proportionately the highest of any dominion army. The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 is now celebrated as having given birth to the foundational narrative of the young Australian nation, but at the time this embryonic nationalism too was positioned within the framework of imperial loyalty. Moreover, with the conservative forces dominating federal politics after the divisive debates about conscription in 1916 and 1917, 'loyalty' became entrenched as the litmus test of political reliability. Hence, while Australia's Prime Minister W. M. (Billy) Hughes aggressively asserted the rights of the dominions to a new and more independent role within the imperial relationship in 1918 and 1919, this agenda for change found little support at home. It is therefore ahistorical to see the First World War as the birth of Australian nationalism in the sense that the term is understood today. Rather, imperial loyalty was affirmed by the British victory as the dominant ideology and proved able to accommodate the growing sense of national singularity that the war fuelled.

This article examines what motivated the dominions to make such a sustained and costly contribution to the war effort of the British empire during the First World War. With particular reference to Australia, it argues that imperial loyalty, now discounted as anachronistic, was the dominant ideology. Not only did it inspire the initial generous support for the British war effort but, for many Australians, the empire's cause invested with meaning the battle losses which were proportionately the highest of any dominion army. The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 is now celebrated as having given birth to the foundational narrative of the young Australian nation, but at the time this embryonic nationalism too was positioned within the framework of imperial loyalty. Moreover, with the conservative forces dominating federal politics after the divisive debates about conscription in 1916 and 1917, 'loyalty' became entrenched as the litmus test of political reliability. Hence, while Australia's Prime Minister W. M. (Billy) Hughes aggressively asserted the rights of the dominions to a new and more independent role within the imperial relationship in 1918 and 1919, this agenda for change found little support at home. It is therefore ahistorical to see the First World War as the birth of Australian nationalism in the sense that the term is understood today. Rather, imperial loyalty was affirmed by the British victory as the dominant ideology and proved able to accommodate the growing sense of national singularity that the war fuelled.

This article examines what motivated the dominions to make such a sustained and costly contribution to the war effort of the British empire during the First World War. With particular reference to Australia, it argues that imperial loyalty, now discounted as anachronistic, was the dominant ideology. Not only did it inspire the initial generous support for the British war effort but, for many Australians, the empire's cause invested with meaning the battle losses which were proportionately the highest of any dominion army. The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 is now celebrated as having given birth to the foundational narrative of the young Australian nation, but at the time this embryonic nationalism too was positioned within the framework of imperial loyalty. Moreover, with the conservative forces dominating federal politics after the divisive debates about conscription in 1916 and 1917, 'loyalty' became entrenched as the litmus test of political reliability. Hence, while Australia's Prime Minister W. M. (Billy) Hughes aggressively asserted the rights of the dominions to a new and more independent role within the imperial relationship in 1918 and 1919, this agenda for change found little support at home. It is therefore ahistorical to see the First World War as the birth of Australian nationalism in the sense that the term is understood today. Rather, imperial loyalty was affirmed by the British victory as the dominant ideology and proved able to accommodate the growing sense of national singularity that the war fuelled.

This article examines what motivated the dominions to make such a sustained and costly contribution to the war effort of the British empire during the First World War. With particular reference to Australia, it argues that imperial loyalty, now discounted as anachronistic, was the dominant ideology. Not only did it inspire the initial generous support for the British war effort but, for many Australians, the empire's cause invested with meaning the battle losses which were proportionately the highest of any dominion army. The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 is now celebrated as having given birth to the foundational narrative of the young Australian nation, but at the time this embryonic nationalism too was positioned within the framework of imperial loyalty. Moreover, with the conservative forces dominating federal politics after the divisive debates about conscription in 1916 and 1917, 'loyalty' became entrenched as the litmus test of political reliability. Hence, while Australia's Prime Minister W. M. (Billy) Hughes aggressively asserted the rights of the dominions to a new and more independent role within the imperial relationship in 1918 and 1919, this agenda for change found little support at home. It is therefore ahistorical to see the First World War as the birth of Australian nationalism in the sense that the term is understood today. Rather, imperial loyalty was affirmed by the British victory as the dominant ideology and proved able to accommodate the growing sense of national singularity that the war fuelled.

The Australian experience of war in all its complexity - from the homefront as well as the battlefront - as the men and women who experienced it chose to understand and remember it. The Great War is, for many Australians, the event that defined our nation. The larrikin diggers, trench warfare, and the landing at Gallipoli have become the stuff of the Anzac legend. But it was also a war fought by the families at home. Their resilience in the face of hardship, their stoic acceptance of enormous casualty lists and their belief that their cause was just, made the war effort possible. This book brings together all the dimensions of World War I. Combining deep scholarship with powerful storytelling, this book brings the war years to life: from the well-known battles at Gallipoli, Pozieres, Fromelles and Villers-Bretonneux, to the lesser known battles in Europe and the Middle East; from the ferocious debates over conscription to the disillusioning Paris peace conference and the devastating Spanish flu the soldiers brought home. We witness the fear and courage of tens of thousands of soldiers, grapple with the strategic nightmares confronting the commanders, and come to understand the impact on Australians at home and at the front of death on an unprecedented scale. A century after the Great War, this book brings lucid insight into the dramatic events, mass grief and political turmoil that makes the memory of this terrible war central to Australia's history.