ANZAC or Anzac?

[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"

[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.

[Lang]

You are right about the significance to the two countries in establishing some sort of independent identity (while still fighting a war under command of the mother country). While always aware that one should barrack for the home team I think we should try to keep things in perspective and recognise the efforts of the others on the field, in any conflict, including the enemy.

As far as the long term myth about the ANZAC force going ashore at the wrong beach, General Bridges maps show Ari Burnu (the little bump on the north end of ANZAC Cove)quite clearly being included in the invasion with ANZAC Cove and North Beach either side of it as the beach head.

There was an excellent TV documentary last week on this subject which demonstrated how much the British knew about the Turkish positions from Aerial observation. The Anzacs went ashore silently with relatively little opposition. The smart diversionary approach by the British to the north held the Turkish main reserve back allowing the ANZACs a free kick to get about 8,000 men ashore before Ataturk overstepped his authority and committed the local Turkish reserve. It was all downhill for the invaders after that.

The British decided to announce their arrival with a naval barrage and as a result were slaughtered in the Clyde operation.

North Beach became the centre of operations and is where the memorial services are held today.

Lang

[Dianaa]

Hi lang

I remember recently a doco on the Hitler Channel talking about mapping the invasion beaches and one officer recommending against the site that is now Anzac Cove because of exactly the steep inclines the troops would have to endure after landing. Sorry I don't remember the name of the doco or the officer involved.

Diana

[Lang]

Diana

The slopes behind ANZAC Cove are actually more broken and easily climbed than behind North Beach (I have climbed both). The thick bushes seemed to be a major problem as the troops ran around in a shambolic way unable to see each other and the officers unable to maintain control. It is reported that a few people actually got to the top of the hill but had insufficient organisation or force to hold any high ground.

The whole point of the exercise was to get to the top of the hill and you can't do that without climbing into overlooking defensive positions at some stage. As I mentioned above the ANZAC force knew in very fine detail where all the Turkish defensive positions were from aerial surveillance in the days before the attack. It was Mustafa Kemel (Ataturk) throwing in the substantial Turkish reserve to reinforce the fairly sparse known defensive positions that turned the tide. In the whole sorry expedition the Kiwis were the ones who came closest to getting to the crest but after a hugely courageous and costly effort, they too failed.

Lang

[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).

[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.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

There was an excellent TV documentary last week on this subject

Yes it's the 2012 doco Gallipoli From Above: The Untold Story. It's compulsory viewing for every Australian and New Zealander and should be shown in schools. You cannot speak credibly about Gallipoli without the facts contained in this doco. Everything we've been taught since the cradle is complete garbage.

[Lynn Eades]

For myself, I have learned a fair bit from this thread and have to say that my previous uneducated view, with regards the use of the acronym "ANZAC" and the word "Anzac", has resulted in a position shift. I now understand that there is no bias in the use of the word "Anzac".
Peace comes from understanding.

Strange we are, that join the forces, to uphold peace, and develop a passion for the equipment of war.

[Tony Wheeler]

I've certainly learned a lot myself as a result of this thread Lynn. To be honest I wasn't even aware of this issue until Mike raised it here. By pure coincidence I'd just been helping my sister draft a letter about Anzac Day and I noticed she spelt it ANZAC Day, but I didn't give it a second thought until I saw Mike's post next day. I thought she might find it interesting so I copied it to her by email, and judging by her reply she'd never given it any thought either: "Now THERE is a can of worms for me, having been an editor, working at the AWM, etc. - let's put on agenda for when we get together!" Maybe she picked up the habit at AWM.

Personally I'm always suspicious of attempts to control language, and the more I looked into this one the more it looked like political correctness to me, at the expense of history. It's well intentioned but as we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The surprising thing for me is that the RSL are so insistent on the use of ANZAC, even for biscuits. They've completely eradicated the word Anzac from their website.

There's an interesting parallel going on in Israel where they object to the trivialization of the word Nazi: "Israel is on the brink of banning the N-word. N as in Nazi, that is. Parliament gave preliminary approval on Wednesday to a bill that would make it a crime to call someone a Nazi..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/wo...ions.html?_r=0

[motto]

Coincidently I stumbled into this ANZAC/Anzac difficulty all on my own today when I e-mailed an American before even being aware of this thread. (I've been away from home for two weeks).
In the letter I mentioned Anzac Day. As I was writing to somebody who had most likely never heard of it I explained that it was like their Veteran's Day. I then went on to give a break down of the title i.e. (ANZAC - Australian & New Zealand Army Corp). Having set out what the title stood for I felt compelled to go back and change the Anzac Day to ANZAC Day as I had made it clear that it was an acronym.
In common, spoken usage, Anzac is a word and nobody in conversation would dream of spelling it out. It may defy convention but IMHO it probably depends as much who you are writing to as to whether you use the word or the acronym.
Maybe to save arguments and avoid offending anyone we could use 'anzac'. That's funny, my spell check just tagged that and suggested Anzac?
Frankly, my dear IDGAD. Or is that Idgad? Either way, none of this is worth getting upset about.

David

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by motto

Either way, none of this is worth getting upset about.

I'm not so sure about that David. I think there's reason to be concerned when State governments legislate against the word Anzac. Fortunately it's protected under Federal law, and any attempt to amend that would be opposed by Army. Politicians are ignorant in these matters, they should stay right out of it. And even if they're knowledgeable, they have no right to unilaterally amend laws around Anzac.

[motto]

Politicians? Is that not the bunch of retards who tell us not to judge people of a certain faith by the actions of a few radical nutters but are happy to condemn all gun owners on that basis?
Surely not a group whose opinions you would value. The thought police will only win if we let them. As Monty Python would have it - Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah! ANZAC! Anzac! anzac!

David

[Dianaa]

Imho We Should Commemorate aNZAC And Leave The Semantics Aside!

[motto]

All attempts at humour aside, I'm with you Dianaa.

David

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by motto

The thought police will only win if we let them.

Don't look now but they've already won in three States:

In recent years, when the parliaments of three State governments changed their laws about Anzac Day they specified the use of "ANZAC" instead of "Anzac". It is common for the upper-case ANZAC to be used in teaching primary school students about Anzac Day and the Anzacs.....a large proportion of Australians would have been taught at school to write "ANZAC Day" instead of "Anzac Day".

http://www.anzacwebsites.com/general/anzac-capitals.htm

[motto]

No, they haven't won Tony. The population at large will be oblivious to their crappy legislation and the word Anzac will never die just like the legend itself. People will continue to spell it as they see fit. Remember that when it is spoken it is spoken as a word not spelt out so the natural thing to do is to write it as a word. This is what I did initially when corresponding with the American. General or common usage is irresistible. I see nothing to worry about.

David

[Marc Montgomery]

NATO is spoken like a word, there's even a Nato Beach.. but its never been spelled Nato. There was USAAF, and is USAF.. but not USaf. even though it either could be pronounced like a word.
NORAD is never Norad, even though it originally stood for Nor(th american)Air Defence, which could theoretically be lower cases as each letter does not stand for a word...(NorAD) or in Canadian Press guidelines-could -theoretically be written Norad.. but it never is.

As for dictionaries being the ultimate...when they start adding "fad" words like twerking (in five years no one will know what that means...or care thank goodness) then they've lost their authority in my mind.
It remains ANZAC to me, because it follows several English language rules.

Remember the brave Chocos ! (even a Canuck knows)