Talk:Military history of Australia during World War I

Tagged

Since most Australians were of British decent, there was unanimous support from all corners of the country[citation needed].

I added a citation tag on the page, since many Australians were opposed to the conflict, such as the Archbishop Daniel Mannix, Most people of Irish descent (because of the conflict between Ireland and Britain, and several other organizations; i'll fill it in when I find my textbook :D ^Talk User:Fissionfox 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Outbreak of the War section

"When mummy declared war on daddy"? Has this page been vandalised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.210.202 (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - well spotted and thanks for posting a notification. I've removed this vandalism. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a reference to the claim that the first shot of the war from the British Empire was fired from Fort Nepean at the entrance to Port Phillip Bay in Victoria on 5th August 1914? Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Queenscliff en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Military_of_Australia/Units/August More detailed accounts: www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/22_2157.pdf http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-567049/Around-the-water-cart-Joe.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tctwood (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

This article needs quite a bit of work. I am currently trying to rewrite the Western Front section (working offline at the moment, so changes won't appear for a while). The naval section is very sparse also. Does anyone feel like they want to have a crack at it? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go at the naval section, but until I get to a library, I'll just be working off the official history. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. I'm sure that will be fine. I've put up what I've done on the Western Front now. Unfortunately I had to cut it a bit short as I had some time constraints with work. It will need a copy edit and I may have missed a few important points, so if anyone wants to take a look at it that would be great. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Been quite busy with work. Does anyone want to have a go at the "Home Front" and "After the War" sections? I'd like to see a bit more on conscription, as well as the repatriation of the Diggers at the end of the war. A bit detailing the history of Anzac Day would be useful, as well as a bit on the soldier settlement scheme. I'm ashamed to say the only book I have about the subject is "Spirit of the Digger" by Patrick Lindsay. Is this a suitable reference? By the way, well done on the Western Front section, AustralianRupert. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I've added a bit more on the conscription issue. I think something could be included on domestic politics at the time - i.e. internment of German migrants, industrial strikes, censorship, etc. But to be honest I know very little about these and don't really have anything on these topics. Can anyone else contribute here? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit more work on the naval section now. The Home Front and Aftermath sections need to be expanded in my opinion. Volume XI of the Official History might help with this if anyone is wanting to start on it. Here is the link [1]. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction rewrite

I think that the introduction needs to be rewritten, but I don't want to change it until I see what other people think.

I have written this —

In Australia the outbreak of World War I was greeted with considerable enthusiasm. Almost as soon as Britain had declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914, the nation pledged its support alongside other Commonwealth nations. By the end of the war, however, Australians were much more circumspect in their support for it. The nation’s involvement had cost over 60,000 Australians their lives and many more were so badly disabled that they were no longer able to work as a result of their injuries. The impact of the war was felt in many other regards also. Financially the war was very costly and the effect on the social and political landscape of Australia was quite profound, with a number of issues developing during the course of the war and afterwards that threatened to cause serious divides in the nation's social fabric. Regardless, for many Australians the nation's involvement in World War I is seen as a symbol of its emergence as an international actor and many of the notions of Australian character and nationhood have their origins in the war.

Throughout the course of the war the main focus of Australia's involvement was predominately military in nature, although air and naval forces were also committed. The main areas in which Australians fought were German New Guinea, Turkey, Palestine and on the Western Front.

What does everyone think? Would you be okay with me replacing the old introduction with this? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good start. Not perfect but much better than what's there at the moment. I think the initial part of the introduction focuses too much on topics which aren't substantially covered in the artcle (eg impact on Australian society financially, politically and socially; rather than on what is covered in the article. I wouldn't like to see the sentence on Gallipoli and conscription removed either. However, Be Bold. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change. I tried to tweak what I'd written to include the points you made about Gallipoli and conscription. I have included the impact on society financially, politically and socially because of the expansion that is required in those areas in the article. Currently the article has Home Front and After the War sections where these topics will be discussed in more detail, thus justifying why they are mentioned in the lead. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Work still required

The following areas still need work in my opinion if this article is to make it to GA status (please add 'Done' beside them as they are completed):

• Naval section:  Done
• Egypt and Palestine section: a number of paragraphs without citations;  Done
• Home Front section: needs more on political and social aspects of mobilisation (internment of German immigrants, industry, censorship, etc.), mobilisation of militia units during the war due to commerce raiders;  Done
• After the War section: repatriation and demobilisation efforts, soldier settlement scheme, invalidity pensions. Done

Just a few ideas for improvement. I am going to see if I can get something done on the After the War section, if others want to take a crack at the Home Front section or the Egypt and Palestine section, that would be great. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added what I can on the repatriation and demobilisation process, but it probably needs to be checked by someone who knows a bit about the subject. Have I included everything that I should? Is it correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work! I'm not an expert on the subject, but a couple of points that could be made: how was the AIF affected by the Spanish Flu epidemic at the end of the war? Lindsay in Spirit of the Digger mentions at least 143 men were killed by the influenza in Salisbury, as well as a unknown number in Sierra Leone of all places. I'd also like to see a bit on the legacy of the war on Australia, eg the formation of the RSL (or its contemporary name), Anzac Day, Charles Bean and the creation of the War Memorial. Finally I think mention should be made of how the strength of the army dropped to under 2000 by 1928. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, cheers. I'm having a bit of trouble downloading some of the official history sources at the moment. Trying to do a bit about internment, war economy, domestic politics and censorship but can't without those sources. My computer seems to be giving up the ghost. In the meantime I will try to work out how those points you raise could be added. I don't want to expand too much more, as the article is getting massive. Hoping to have the improves knocked over in the next fortnight or so. Then perhaps take it to a peer review and then a GA or A class nom. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the length. The Military history of Australia in World War II article is 126kb long, whereas this one is only 79 (although the length may deter some reviewers when it goes to GA/A nom). But if something has to be cut, I'd rather we reduce extra detail about specific battles and campaigns rather than omit issues entirely.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, mate, I've added in the rest of the Home Front section. I'm hoping that's it, but I reckon I've probably missed some stuff. Can you go through a take a look at what I've added and see if I've missed anything? I notice that you've already started that in the Sinai section (nice!). Also, the refs I used for some of the War Precautions Act section may not be considered that great. I looked at Scott but he is a bit vague about the War Precautions Act for some reason. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section

I've added in a legacy section to include most of the points raised above. It probably needs a bit of work still, though. I'm finding my enthusiasm wanning a little, so if someone with fresh eyes could go over this, that would be great. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have tweaked it a little. I have made a couple of conclusions, are they fair? What do you think? Is it okay to include them, or should it be reworked? — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit about foreign affairs and the Paris Peace Conference. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice, how did I miss that? Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

There are two more citations needed tags. Can anyone help with the refernces for these? Also, are there anymore sentences that need citations? — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's just one more citation needed now, in the Gallipoli section. I can't find anything that says this. It was originally in the article when I started rewriting the Gallipoli section ages ago, so I don't know where whoever wrote it got their info from. Can anyone help with it? — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've sort it out now. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment and Review

I am going to request that this article be reviewed against B class criteria now, but I'm am hopeful that it can go further than that. What does everything think is the best course of action? Should the article go up for peer review now, or nominate for a GA or A class review? — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest a peer review - an article this detailed would benefit from a process which encourages detailed comments from editors. The peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II was very helpful for that article's development. The article can be nominated for GA status at the same time it's peer reviewed. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've put in the peer review request and the GA nom (which will probably take a while given the backlog). — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed tables

I have removed the following tables from the article as per the GA review and peer review. However, as neither the AFC page is a redirect and does not include this information I will put them here for safe keeping. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian Military Units of the AIF

Divisions	Other Units
New Zealand and Australian Division Start of War – February 1916	Australian and New Zealand Army Corps December 1914 – February 1916
Australian 1st Division August 1914 – End of War	I Anzac Corps February 1916 – October 1917
Australian 2nd Division July 1915 – March 1919	II Anzac Corps February 1916 – October 1917
Australian 3rd Division March 1916 – End of War	Desert Mounted Corps August 1917 – End of War	Desert Column December 1916 - August 1917
Australian 4th Division February 1916 – End of War	Australian Corps November 1917 – End of War
Australian 5th Division February 1916 – End of War
Anzac Mounted Division March 1916 – End of War	Australian Army Artillery Units of World War I
Australian Mounted Division February 1917 – End of War	Australian Army Medical Units of World War I

Units of the AFC

Operational Squadrons	Training Squadrons
No. 1 Squadron AFC	No.5 (Training) Squadron AFC
No.2 Squadron AFC	No.6 (Training) Squadron AFC
No.3 Squadron AFC	No.7 (Training) Squadron AFC
No.4 Squadron AFC	No.8 (Training) Squadron AFC

Images need Alt text and any other improves?

Hi, I'd been resisting coming back to this article as I'm very busy, but it seems it has been tagged as the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight to get it up to FA status, so I feel obligated to help out given I was one of the main culprits of any errors/issues. One area that I can see which needs work are the images. Per WP:ALT they require Alt text. I will start adding some, but if anyone else wants to help out that would be great as I'm not very good at Alt text and there are a lot of images, so any help would be greatly appreciated. While we are at it does anyone have any suggestions for further improvements? I will try to sort out if I can. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added some alt text now, but there are still quite a few left. ChoraPete (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we finally got all the alt text now... dab links all check out but there is an issue with one of the external links (lighthorse.org.au} which appears to be a dead link. This will need to be fixed before any A/FA review. The mainpage exists but the specific page seems missing... may be it has just moved? See the external link check results here. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that, I was getting tired of adding the alt text. I've fixed the issue of the broken link by adding a dead tree source. I used Roland Perry's book of the Australian Light Horse. His figures were slightly different from those that were attributed to the website, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which war memorials should be mentioned?

I failed to get back to the peer review before it closed, so I'm bringing up here one of the points I raised there, where I suggested including the following (the Australian War Memorial is already in the article): Villers-Bretonneux Memorial, the V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial, the Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery, and Lone Pine Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery in Gallipoli. ChopraPete's reply said at the peer review included this comment: "I think listing all the memorials may be a bit much also. They could be included in the articles for the battles themselves though". My response to that is that I did not propose listing all the memorials, but only suggested an additional four (there are, of course, many more Australian war memorials than just those ones). The reason I suggested those four was to have, in addition to the main war memorial in Australia, a mention of the main war memorial in France (the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial), a mention of one of the memorials in Gallipoli, and a mention of the new cemetery which has been in the news a lot recently (Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery); though I agree that the V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial is a bit obscure for mentioning in this article. One other point: ChopraPete said that the memorials could be mentioned in the articles about the battles - that works for the ones about a particular battle, but not for the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial. This memorial was specifically erected as the National memorial for all Australia's forces in France and Flanders. Indeed, the inscription says: in memory of the Australian Imperial Force in France and Flanders 1916–1918 and of eleven thousand who fell in France and have no known grave. The memorial consists of a large tower, and was unveiled by King George VI, with his speech broadcast to Australia. Given all this, I think that the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial is an important part of the history of Australia and World War I (just as the Vimy Memorial is for Canada), and that this memorial at least should be mentioned in this article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to them being added, but given that it is a large article we need to be careful not to put too much weight on any one topic. I'm happy if you want to add them in how you see fit (so long as it is referenced, and maintains the style currently used). I'd hoped to try to get this article up to A class or even FA, but am swamped at the moment, so I'm glad of any editing help at the moment. BTW, sorry to take so long replying. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What I will do, then, is try and tie the Australian War Memorial, the Australian Tomb of the Unknown Warrior (currently a section in the AWM article), and the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial and Menin Gate together. The latter two are the main memorials in France and Belgium to the WWI Australian dead, and this was emphasised when the Unknown Warrior (now buried in the Australian War Memorial) lay in state at both Villers-Bretonneux and the Cloth Hall at Ypres (near the Menin Gate) during his journey home (see here for details). I'll leave the other ones out, but what I want to do is ensure that if memorials are mentioned in this article at all, that it is not just one (the AWM). As for mentioning memorials at all, my view is that the process of remembrance and commemoration (which continues today) is part of the history of Australia and World War I (though it is not clear what the difference is between this article and one covering the wider civilian history or articles covering the later history after the war). Clearly, there is potential for overlap between the civilian and military histories, and the war histories and post-war histories. Quite how that overlap should be managed (one article or several), I'm not sure. What is clear is that there is a lot of history following the war as well as the history during the war. Four years of war followed by 90+ years of 'legacy' and aftermath (with the history immediately following the war not that well covered in Wikipedia at the moment, such as the pilgrimage journeys). At the moment, for example, ANZAC Day is correctly mentioned in the lead section, but is not mentioned in the 'Legacy' section, but is mentioned in the 'Evacuation' subsection of the 'Gallipoli' section. One of the problems is that until Wikipedia's coverage of the post-war history expands, it is unclear what should be summarised in articles like this. I would suggest a list (converted to a paragraph of text) of the main post-war events and discussion here of which of those should be mentioned in the article. I would suggest, as a starting point (several are already mentioned in the 'Legacy' section): ANZAC Day (annually from 1916); peace conferences and treaties (1919); publication of the official war history (1920-1942); unveiling and opening of the Shrine of Remembrance (1934); unveiling of the Villers-Bretonneux Memorial (1938); unveiling of the Australian War Memorial (1941); the burial of the Australian Unknown Warrior (1993); and the major ceremonies to mark anniversaries of WWI. That will take no more than a paragraph, though it does rather overlook the post-war history relating to Gallipoli, and the commemoration activities in the past 15 years or so. Probably the best option is to get a proper article written on the post-war history, and then return here and see what summary here is needed of that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian volunteers

In his book "Empire" Niall Ferguson notes that "...a very high proportion of Australian volunteers had been born in Britain...). He further comments "the same was true of Canadian volunteers". He does not mention (for Australian volunteers) what the proportion was. Military history of Canada during the First World War does give some details regarding Canadians. I don't have the figures but I believe it would help clarify some of the home front conflicts about, for example, conscription if someone could help with this information. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It was true of the first wave of volunteers, but Australian-born men made up a much greater proportion of volunteers thereafter. It's also a bit academic given that most Australian-born Australians saw their country as an extension of Britain at the time of World War I. I agree that this belongs in the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Romani

The introductory paragraph on this page is full of errors. I have checked the reference quoted and no where does it mention the seemingly pivotal role or any role at all of the 52nd Infantry Division's artillery. Does anyone have a problem with me editing it? --RoslynSKP (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the para in question may give a little too much weight to the role of the artillery in this instance. As such, if you have more reliable sources and can write a better summary I say go for it per WP:BOLD. Any changes you make can always be discussed and tweaked by other interested parties after the fact. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RoslynSKP, please don't forget the requirement for inline citations though. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So I should only give author, date and page number in the citation then the source in the source. OK - I have a bit of editing to do ... :) --RoslynSKP (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is preferred although it is no problem as multiple citation styles are in fact welcome on wiki. The best rule is when dealing with mature articles such as this one is to just ensure that your citation style is consistent with the rest of the article. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Australia during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417052228/http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/powers.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/powers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418165853/http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/enemy.html to http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/homefront/enemy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military history of Australia during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811081532/http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/ to http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)