It does not matter where you go in Australia, whether a capital city or a town with less than a hundred people, one thing’s for certain: you will find a war memorial.
There are two wars in particular that are heavily commemorated. One is the Boer War, specifically the 2nd Boer War (1899-1902). Driven by a discovery of gold and competing politics with Dutch-Afrikaner farmers in South Africa, Britain fought a bitter guerrilla war against these farmers to gain complete control of the region (by the way, Boer means ‘farmer’ in Dutch, cf. German “Bauer”).
This war was widely commemorated in Australia for a few reasons. It was the first war Australia participated in after Federation (1901). Also, Australian forces were the first of the colonial volunteers to land in South Africa, which was a source of pride. Above all, it was a major conflict, involving the largest invasion force to leave British shores since 1415! However, of the 15-20,000 Australians who served, there were only around one thousand casualties.
Then there’s the other war that’s so universally commemorated that Australians barely remember the Boer War. Instead, Australians believe our first war was the war to end all wars: WWI.
If you look up the definition of “pointless war” in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture from WWI (although the Thirty Years War is a very close second). Yet monuments to this grotesque war feature prominently in every Australian town, usually on the main street or an important intersection. The most common form is an obelisk or statue of a soldier accompanied with a garden and/or an artillery piece, but the memorials come in many forms.
The main cities, naturally, tend to have grandiose and moving tributes to those who fought in WWI: Adelaide’s “National” War Memorial, Melbourne’s Shrine that essentially deifies the fallen, yet remains humble (somehow) compared to Canberra’s Australian War Memorial.
But how come you see these sombre reminders no matter where you go, whether Avenel, Ballarat, Raukkan or even Kangaroo Island? Sure, WWI was a massive war, but didn’t the war happen mostly in Europe? Why isn’t there a comparable number of memorials scattered throughout Europe?
To fully appreciate the answer, we want to talk about Napoleon (Yes, that Napoleon).
A FRENCHMAN AND A GERMAN WALK INTO A BAR…
What’s Napoleon got to do with WWI? Quite a bit, as it turns out.
After the French Revolution began in 1789, France drew the ire of the other European Empires. The revolutionaries were undermining the principles that monarchy was based upon, so much so the Assembly eventually abolished royalty and executed Louis XVI (January 1793). But even before then, France had declared war on Austria and Prussia (1792), which began the French Revolutionary Wars.
Several empires fought France in the coming years, including Britain, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. But France managed to fend off all attacks…until Napoleon Bonaparte took control of the country in 1799. Once he was in charge, the Napoleonic Wars began. In a series of devastating conflicts, Napoleon dominated Europe, extending French rule across the continent.
He was thwarted by Moscow burning itself to the ground and the Russian Winter, leading to Napoleon’s defeat in 1813. (And then he tried to take over Europe again at Waterloo in 1815). Napoleon was defeated, but so was the rest of Europe: twenty-three years of conflict (the “Coalition Wars”) had wreaked havoc on the continent.
The main reason Napoleon couldn’t be defeated was because his army was huge – at its peak, it numbered 1.1 million men, the same size as the all the other countries put together! Combined with genius strategy, Napoleon could fight several battles at once. His army also pillaged and raided villages for food and supplies, a far cry from the old days of armies merely passing through without incident. Only once Russia was invaded did the Coalition forces outnumber and overwhelm France.
This is where Otto von Bismarck enters the picture.
I know, but hear me out!
Bismarck started his political career in the 1850s, just as first-hand experiences of the Napoleonic destruction were fading away. He was an expert politician, rising through the ranks to became the Prime Minister of Prussia in 1862.
From here, he engineered three short, ruthless conflicts against Denmark (1864), Austria Hungary (1866) and France (1870). These wars won support from the individual German states, solidified Prussia’s dominance of central Europe and enabled Bismarck to unify the German states: Germany was born in January 1871.
A new, powerful nation that threatened every other European Power had popped into existence. Luckily, Bismarck then engineered treaties and alliances all throughout Europe to ensure everybody would think twice before going to war with each other.
Although hardly anyone alive remembered the Napoleonic era, the trauma it caused still reverberated well into the late 19th Century, just as WWII and Hitler are on our minds today. Europe wanted to avoid another devastating conflict like that. They learned a lot from the Coalition Wars and based subsequent strategy on the Napoleonic era. And so, a side from brief and/or minor wars, Europe experienced peace for nearly one hundred years.
The time that would’ve been spent fighting was instead spent collaborating and developing technology. The 19th century was the time of industrial revolution, so scientific discoveries were being made at record pace across the world: the telegraph, the sewing machine, the train, the typewriter, the lightbulb, the telephone amongst other things. There were also innovations like the assembly line and the idea of mass production via replaceable parts, made possible with the efficiency brought about by railways and electrification.
Naturally, this lead to new weapons of war:
- Guns capable of shooting ten bullets a second.
- Undetectable sniper rifles with a 1km range.
- Poisonous gas that could liquify your lungs with the briefest exposure.
- Artillery that could hit targets beyond the horizon.
- Motorised fortresses that were impervious to small arms fire.
- Machines that defied gravity and dropped bombs from above.
- Explosives hidden beneath the earth that exploded when stepped on.
- Portable devices that can shoot arcs of flames twenty metres long.
All these efficient killing machines, just waiting to be deployed…
“LIKE ONE LARGE ARMY THAT COMMITS SUICIDE”
The complicated entanglement of alliances tripped everybody up because one guy (Archduke Franz Ferdinand) got shot in June 1914 by a Bosnian-Serb. Franz was heir to Austria-Hungary, so Austria-Hungary began invading Serbia with Germany’s backing.
Russia, seeing fellow Slavs in trouble, mobilised its army along the borders of both Austria-Hungary and Germany. Germany declared war on Russia, but France was allied with Russia, so Germany declared war on them too and invaded Belgium to get to France. This triggered Britain to enter the war. Soon, the Ottoman Empire joined the Central powers, mostly because they hated Russia.
Bismarck’s attempts to keep everyone from fighting dragged everyone into war.
But while technology was cutting edge, soldiers and commanders were stuck in the previous century. Since Napoleon had the biggest army and always won, every nation built up massive armies during the long peace, convinced that victory was possible so long as you had more men to throw at the army.
This may have worked before rifled barrels and a musket could fire 2-3 rounds a minute, but technological development rendered the ‘bigger army’ theory obsolete. If the enemy set up just ten machineguns and fired for just one minute, 6000 bullets could be fired. This is ignoring the cannons pummelling you with grenades and poison from several kilometres away. Thousands of men could be cut down in a matter of minutes by just a couple dozen enemies equipped with cutting edge weaponry.
Yet the armies marched towards each other without any innovation on military strategy. Needless to say, the first few days of war were a complete disaster for everyone involved.
Nobody knew what to do, so they dug in to hide from the devastating effects of modern weaponry. From here, permanent trenches were quickly constructed ranging from Belgium to Switzerland. But trenches were a double-edged sword: they protected you from the worst of enemy attacks, but the enemy’s trenches became impenetrable fortresses. The war quickly descended into stalemate.
While soldiers waited for the next suicidal attack, they were picked off by diseases. Trenches were unsanitary and often flooded due to the beautiful Belgian weather. The muddy water was a breeding ground for disease. But just standing in it for too long could give you ‘trench foot’ which doesn’t take long to take effect and can require amputation if severe enough (I nearly gave myself trench foot in Rakiura – it’s painful!).. So while waiting for certain death, the soldiers were being tormented by infections and sickness.
But even then, disease only accounted for one-third of military casualties, even factoring in Spanish Flu! This is a far cry from the 60-75% figures from previous wars throughout history (that’s right: most deaths and injuries in war are not from the bullet, but the bug). Again, WWI flipped everything on its head.
But the WWI Generals were inversely innovative to the point of absurdity. Often far away from the front, they were stuck in the Napoleonic wars they had read so much about. I mean, it was the last major conflict most countries in Europe were involved in. They became obsessed with the idea of ‘the decisive battle’, involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers to overwhelm the enemy and break their defensive live permanently. I mean, that’s how Napoleon won, right?
That’s pretty much the explanation behind most major battles in WWI: The Somme, Verdun, Passchendaele, The Spring Offensive. All were to be the ‘decisive battle’. No matter how destructive or futile previous attempts were, they clung to the idea of a ‘decisive battle’. They even sought this ‘decisive battle’ amongst civilian populations…
THE WOMEN AND THE CHILDREN TOO
World War doesn’t just mean geographic – it means everyone is involved in prosecuting and perpetuating the death and destruction, including women and children. Everyone was affected by it.
In the past, unless they were near the front lines, civilians weren’t in the direct firing line (but still suffered the economic and health consequences of war, naturally). But WWI forced itself into the home, compelling every available resource to be poured into continuing its existence. This resulted in a ‘home front’ that ripped apart the traditional social fabric.
Since most of the male working force was absent, women were forced to enter the heavy industries, producing the bombs and bullets that killed husbands, brothers and sons. This meant many children grew up without either parent present. This would have been hard enough to deal with on its own. And because the entire country was involved, every civilian became an acceptable target. As a result, ten million civilians died in WWI.
Attacks on civilians mostly took the form of naval blockades that prevented food, supplies and war material from getting delivered. There were several reasons to target the civilians. By starving the people at home, it could break the enemies’ morale. It would disrupt the mass production of weapons and ammunition. It could even create riots that forced governments to surrender.
And this is precisely what happened with devastating consequences. Every Central Power collapsed under the burden of war. Germany overthrew its Kaiser, Austria-Hungary disintegrated along ethnic lines and the Ottoman Empire, long the ‘Sick Man of Europe’, finally passed away.
The ‘winners’ were also destabilised by the war. Russia convulsed so violently that Communists managed to gain power in 1917. Italy fell under the sway of Fascism by 1922. France and Britain were the only major belligerents to survive in their original state and even they barely survived the aftermath.
The fallout would have been less traumatic had there been a purpose to the conflict. Sure, there were real reasons to go to war in 1914, but these original war aims were swiftly swept aside and replaced with sadistic hatred, atrocity and dehumanisation.
Take out a 30cm ruler and put it in front of you. Now imagine this: In order for you to move 30cm ahead, just one foot, one thousand men had to die. This is hardly an exaggeration: 10 million soldiers died in the conflict, with up to 20 million wounded. In contrast, the frontline in the West only fluctuated a couple kilometres for four long years. It seemed Europe was hellbent on bleeding itself dry.
And of the 400,000 Australian men that participated, 60,000 were killed and 150,000 were wounded. The casualties amounted to 5% of the population.
FREE TRIP TO EUROPE
However, Australians were enthusiastic to go to war in 1914. In fact, the first shot fired in the war may have occurred just outside Melbourne – just four hours after Britain declared war! Fort Nepean fired at the German merchant ship SS Pfalz on August 5th 1914, several hours before the Battle of Liège!
But why was Australia so eager to participate in the fighting, even after the initial atrocities of 1914? The first reason is obvious: the love of the motherland was intense. Australia had served in the Boer War and wanted to support the motherland once again.
But to think this was purely out of loyalty is mistaken. If Britain lost, Australia would die. This is not hyperbole! Although Australia was slowly developing an independent military, these forces were completely inadequate. To defend 7.68 million square kilometres (read: the size of Europe ex. Russia), there were less than 2,000 professional soldiers. To patrol 34,000km of coastlines, there were sixteen ships and 3800 Royal Australian Navy (RAN) personnel, of which 850 were from the Royal Navy. Australia might as well have been defenceless.
Britain, luckily, had been a guarantor of Australia’s defence for over a hundred years, mostly with the Royal Navy. Not only did this ensure Australia wouldn’t fall prey to other European powers or rising powers like Japan, this freed Australia from the burden of defence budgeting – easily the biggest part of most national budgets (just look at the US – half of its budget, nearly a trillion dollars, goes to the military!). This meant Australian colonies could budget social schemes like welfare and public works to build up the colonies at lightning speed.
The speed at which roads, rails, telegraph lines and buildings were constructed was not achievable if Britain wasn’t defending Australia from attack. To refuse to fight for Britain would be treachery. Also, if Britain was defeated, Australia was at the mercy of Germany – or any other nation…
But even with the intense enthusiasm, the numbers of enlisted men just weren’t meeting targets. Conscription was attempted in 1916 and 1917, but both referenda were defeated. It’s a hallmark of the Aussie Spirit: ask us and we’ll bend over backwards for you, but demand us and we’ll tell you to go Hell!
So fierce was the antipathy towards conscription that it continues to this day. Conscription has only occurred twice in Australian history as a result. The first and less controversial was for WWII, introduced in 1939 by the Menzies government (fun fact: My grandfather got conscripted but had skills desperately needed on the home front. His friends, however, never returned after deployment – their ship was sunk by the Japanese). The more notorious case was the Vietnam War in 1964. It was also introduced by the Menzies government and continued under the Holt government.
(Just as a slight diversion, the conscription debate caused Australia to have two armies in WWII: One voluntary and the other conscripted. The voluntary ones could serve anywhere since they chose to be there, and so ended up serving in key battles like Crete, El Alamein and the Liberation of France. The conscripted army, however, were strictly for defence – no overseas deployment. Two armies also meant two administrations, which was a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare.)
That explains a thing or two about Australian attitudes towards conscription. But even without conscription, 400,000 Australian men ended up serving in WWI – 10% of Australia’s population, 20% of men and 40% of men aged 18-44.
LEST WE FORGET
Even far away from the front lines, Australia still suffered real consequences of the war, including rationing of basic foodstuffs. But perhaps the worst effect was the crushing psychological distress. Naturally, the outcome in Europe would have had real consequences for Australia’s existence. But due to interruptions in communications, it took a while for news and letters to arrive from Europe.
It was never positive, even with the most enthusiastic spins from media and soldiers alike. And your loved one still hadn’t responded to that letter you sent two weeks ago…three weeks ago…three months ago…
Of course, the reason they didn’t respond was because they had been killed in ruthless battles that ultimately achieved nothing. 60,000 men – 1.5% of the population – never came home.
But those who survived didn’t consider themselves lucky. 150,000 had been wounded – 3.5% of the population. Countless more had been traumatised by their experiences, becoming suicidal or suffering ‘shellshock’. A common sentiment was that they had been duped by tales of glory and honour, only to participate in the closest thing to Hell on earth: Brutality, death and destruction for no gain – only loss. They would often say that the war was so brutal you wished you were dead.
Sure, Australians (and Kiwis) gained a reputation for being fierce and effective soldiers and played decisive roles despite being such young nations. John Monash is often heralded as the greatest General of WWI. But this was the first time in history a war had been so ubiquitous yet so pointless. There was no glory and no celebration to be had in this war.
WWI is an important war in Australia. It was Australia’s first ‘real’ war since it happened to be one that involved everyone – not just the 400,000 soldiers sent to fight, but their families at home. The failure of the Gallipoli Campaign (April 1915), Australia’s first major military campaign, has shaped our view of war permanently. We don’t see glory in war, but rather necessary evil.
The end-of-war festivities were characterised by an overwhelming sense of relief. On Anzac Day (25th April), Australians get up before dawn, just like the soldiers in our first major military campaign did before they were baptised in the flames of war (And just like every other campaign, it turned into a giant stalemate). Then, we pay our respect to veterans of all wars, with special attention given to those who didn’t return.
Indeed, the shadow cast over Australian society by WWI remains dark to this day. It continues to be the reference point for war in Australia – the WWI memorials have become universal war memorials, commemorating all wars Australia has fought in (apart from the previous Boer War memorials).
So be sure to stop and pay your respects if you’re travelling around Australia – a war memorial is never too far away…
Subscribe
Subscribe to a monthly newsletter to receive all the latest updates and even receive exclusive content!
21st Century Jacobsweg 
Leave a Reply