ANZAC or Anzac?

[Mike Cecil]

Excellent, Rick.

Everyone's input has been great and most stimulating. I think we may all have learned a thing or two about ANZAC/Anzac and its proper use, and about its origin.

Mike C

[Dianaa]

Hi Rick

While I don't doubt your reasoning about the word "Anzac" from Vol 1 of The Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, however Vol 1 was first published in 1921.

The use of the non-capitalised form may therefore have developed after 1915 and Bean used it in that form when writing Vol 1 only because it it had come into common usage by that time. It would be nice if we could see the form from the original sources, like Birdwood's correspondence rather than from secondary sources like Bean's "History" official or not.

Diana

[Lynn Eades]

I thought it interesting that in New Zealand the word Anzac was already protected by law in 1916 (see link in Tony's post)

[Mike Cecil]

Dianaa,

From my original post.....

"I've just had a quick look at the NLA's Trove, and the first use of the word 'Anzac/ANZAC' in newspapers was in quotes from the report to the Minister for Defence from Sir Ian Hamilton. This report was widely quoted, ostensibly verbatim, in newspapers in June 1915. The text includes '...I received information from Anzac that enemy reinforcements had been seen...'. Already a word, it seems, by that early stage.

Also in the June 1915 newspapers were 'on site' reports from CEW Bean (the 'father' of the AWM, and who went on to write the First World War Official History), again quoted verbatim, in which he states '...at no time during the fighting in what is now known as Anzac Bay ...'.

Bean continued to use this 'proper word' convention post-war in the official history, Volume 2: The Story of Anzac. While headings are all caps, the word 'Anzac' within the text and in map and image captions is in upper and lower case, ie used as a proper word."

So at least June 1915, but from the entries discovered by Rick, quite probably (almost certainly?) earlier in the form 'Anzac'.

Mike C

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

So at least June 1915, but from the entries discovered by Rick, quite probably (almost certainly?) earlier in the form 'Anzac'.

Most definitely earlier. It's also mentioned in the AWM link I suggested earlier: "You'll find a brief summation of the Anzac spirit on the AWM website, including the origins of the word 'Anzac' itself, and I'd suggest it's required reading for this debate: http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/spirit.asp

To quote: "Devised by a signaller in Egypt as a useful acronym for “Australian and New Zealand Army Corps”, it quickly became a word with many uses and meanings."

Once again there's no mention of any date, but given that planning commenced in late 1914, after Britain declared war on Turkey and the Australians and New Zealanders were diverted to Egypt, it's entirely inconceivable that signallers waited until after the landing to coin the acronym, and used the longhand form during months of training and organization in Egypt and on Lemnos. Rick's info states "one day early in 1915", and while Bean may have written this in 1921 it does not alter the context. Clearly an acronym was needed for signals, and once it had been coined it would instantly become a word in speech at HQ, thereafter to be written as such. There's no suggestion its usage arose amongst the troops themselves, nor would that make any sense. Even Bean goes on to state: "It was, however, some time before the code word came into general use, and at the Landing many men in the divisions had not yet heard of it."

Therefore it had to be some time between declaration of war on 5/11/14 and the landing itself on 25/4/15, and logically it would be closer to the first date. As Diana suggests though it would be interesting to see the earliest written use of the word in a primary source. Certainly you'd expect it to be a long time before a military signals code became casualized in newspapers, which as Mike has shown had already occurred by June '15.

Just on a side note, I read somewhere during this discussion that the title 'Australasian Army Corps' was coined initially, and even appeared in the unit diary. The suggestion was that the Kiwis objected so it was abandoned. If true, then it's the Kiwis themselves who are responsible for the word they now find so objectionable!

[Dianaa]

Given that the name was apparently coined by a signaller, it would have been transmitted by morse code which does not contain case in the letter/numeral codes. Similarly newspaper reports from the front would go over the wire and be formatted into case sensitive text by the typesetters back in Australia using regular English language conventions. These reports can only be considered secondary sources in this context.

While I agree Mike's original post mentioned the date of June 1915, two months after the landings at what became Anzac Cove and I've commented on that earlier date in above posts. I still believe that a definative answer would only come from primary sources such as unit diaries and original notations in the handwriting or personally signed by senior command such as Gen. Birdwood at Anzac Cove or in Cairo.

[Lynn Eades]

Australasian Army Corps would have been, and still would be the truth, so aren't we lucky then Tony.
"Anzac day" has a much better ring to it, than "Aac (clears throat?) day"

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Australasian Army Corps would have been, and still would be the truth, so aren't we lucky then Tony.

Most definitely Lynn! If this story is true then Australians owe thanks to the Kiwis for the very word Anzac. Given what that word has come to mean to Australia it's hard to think of a bigger debt of gratitude.

Let's consider the alternative history - as you suggest there's no way you could rally a nation around a clearing of the throat 'Aac', and it's entirely inconceivable that Australians could ever see themselves as 'Australasians' and celebrate 'Australasian Day.' The word 'austral' means south, and while we may consider ourselves part of Asia these days, I doubt we'd take kindly to being referred to as South Asians! Nor I suspect would Kiwis, so you've done yourselves a pretty big favour as well!

When you consider these two possible realities it becomes clear that the naming of this particular Army Corps in 1914 is another example of the power of language, and how world history often turns on tiny events.

[Lang]

Tony

I don't think the Kiwis find ANZAC/Anzac objectionable. I do think they are entitled to be a little miffed about their entire removal from the history in many Australian ceremonies and talks on the subject - reference the Helen Clarke bridge story.

You would get a fight in a bar that there were ANY French involved in the Gallipoli campaign let alone that they lost 25% more people than the Australians and the Poms losing 3 times as many would come as a total shock.

The term ANZAC/Anzac, whatever spelling, was not a signals code but just another of hundreds of military acronyms. The mysterious chap who is credited with suggesting the abbreviation would have almost certainly been someone on the very first day the formation title was devised in a headquarters somewhere. No sensible person would continue to write a five word title continuously through any document and the military, with their love of acronyms, certainly would have had it abbreviated immediately- probably even by the person/s who invented the name for the formation.

Lang

[Dianaa]

Hi Lang

I don't think the numerical statistics are a consideration in the commemoration of the Gallipoli campaign, the issues for the Kiwis and Aussies are that they were in a separate location to forces of other nations put ashore at the wrong beach by the Royal Navy.

The significance of the campaigns for both countries and for the (post Ottoman) Turkish for that matter was that it was the first occasion where they fought as soldiers of relatively young nations and no longer as colonies administered from London. It is seen by many as the birth of national identies for all three countries.

These are not aspects of consideration when discussing European nations like the UK or France.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

I don't think the Kiwis find ANZAC/Anzac objectionable.

Not ANZAC, just Anzac. Much of the push for ANZAC over Anzac stems from a desire to recognize NZ more fully. The word Anzac when written puts NZ in lower case next to upper case A, which is symbolically insulting. Just like Anz Bank would be symbolically insulting. It's reinforced by actual insult, eg. Helen Clarke bridge incident as you say.

That's why I said earlier: "If we have some gripe across the ditch then let's address it constructively, without engaging in semantics over the word". Which means Australia making much more effort to be inclusive of New Zealand in meaningful ways. There's nothing we can do about the word because that's just the way words are spelt. Another example would be Benelux, the union of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. It's entirely arbitrary, purely because Benelux sounds better than Nebelux or Luxbene or any other combination. Conveniently it also has some positive Latin connotations, ie. bene (good, well) and lux (light).