By Dominic P.G. Sheridan MA
Abstract
At the beginning of World War One, Australia was a mere teenager of just 14 years when it hit the international stage. It had a lot to prove if it wanted to join the other nations of the wider world. However, all that, and Australia’s future good name, stood to be lost before it was even able to prove its international worth. Before Australians were to prove themselves in all theatres of war, an incident in Egypt’s Cairo was to threaten everything. What followed was a war of words which was fuelled by article and poem – correspondent and soldier.
Key Words: venereal disease, Cairo, Charles Bean, Francis Westbrook, whining wowser, critic
Introduction
In 1915, only 127 years after the arrival of the First Fleet in Port Jackson, Sydney, in 1788, Australia stood as the youngest nation in the world, even though 'terra nullius'[1] had been inhabited for 40 to 50 thousand years prior to white settlement. In 1915, Australia was a young teenager of 14 years of age, having been federated[2] on the 1st of January, 1901. Yet, as the 1st AIF stood encamped beneath the great pyramids in Egypt practicing the new manoeuvres of military drill and Divisional discipline, there were some students of history who well realised that others had passed by there before them. “‘From the summit of these pyramids’, Napoleon had declared to his army in Egypt 115 years before, ‘forty centuries look down on you.’ And two thousand years before Napoleon, the Roman Legions had camped here.” (Adam-Smith 63)
In time, great poets would step up and capture the connection of the old and new worlds, and demonstrate the old adage that, ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’. One of these poets, Leon Gellert, captured this sense in his 1915 poem, ‘The Old and the New’:
Mars! Mars! War! War!
Thy clashing sword was keen Thy hidden horror sound
And glittering with stars. And echo from afar.
Thine armour sheen Upon the ground
Shone to the terrored sky, Thou liest now in fear
And o’er the bodies of thy foes To wait the cunning chance
With open blows To thrust thy lance,
Didst step to victory. And hurl thy poisoned spear.
(Gellert 35)
Gellert raises another issue in this poem, by noting that the romance of myth does not extend to the horrors of reality. This would soon be understood by all of the Anzacs in Egypt. Gellert’s ‘poisoned spear’ was not only the reality of the bullets, bombs and shrapnel of the front line, but also the infectious pleasure bombs of the Wassir, the fleshpots and dens of ill and infamous repute which littered the seedy streets of Cairo.
Gellert had also noticed something that all of the 1st AIF of this young teenage nation would notice over the next three years; that while mythology and history may be cousins of a similar story, the uniting figure is mankind and all the struggles, good or ill, of his coming of age. Like all mothers, Australia would watch her sons as they went out into the cruel world and become men. With a nationhood of only 14 years of age, these sons of Australia, the 1st AIF, would have their problems, as any teenager would have, and attract a critical eye of the motherland – England. At such an early stage in Australian national development, the war of words that was about to unfold was to become a defining moment that would ultimately be brushed under the carpet of AIF mythology and history. Gellert had perhaps noticed something else too; that the reality of modern war was not so clean as the mythology. It was poisoned and dirty.
1 ~ “Sodden with drink or rotten from women”[3]
In a letter written in Shepheard’s Hotel, Cairo, by General Birdwood[4] to General Bridges[5], on the 27th of December, 1914, he made it clear (from the advice of General Sir John Maxwell[6]) that the drunkenness and bad behaviour of ‘some of our men in the Cairo streets must stop’. He states that Lord Kitchener had given the men some ‘breathing time to prepare before the struggle ahead’, and that the men of the 1st Australian Division should maintain a soundness of mind and body, but further, that this meant a personal control over one’s desire for hard drink and lose women. (Birdwood)
“But there is no possibility whatever of our doing ourselves full justice unless we are every one of us absolutely physically fit, and this no man can possibly be if he allows himself to become sodden with drink or rotten from women – and unless he is doing his best to keep himself efficient he is swindling the Government which has sent him to represent it and fight for it.” (Birdwood)
While Birdwood loved his command; telling Kitchener ‘how intensely proud and well-nigh overwhelmed at finding himself in command of such a magnificent body of men’, he also knew that should his command become known for their prowess with hard drink and impure activities of the bedroom parlours, and allow themselves to become as he says, ‘sodden with drink or rotten from women’, then their effective fighting quality would become so diminished that they risked being dismantled and sent home. It would be a shame too terrible to think about. The stain on the Division would also stick to those in ultimate command; such as Bridges as well as Birdwood himself. (Birdwood) In truth, something like this would create such a ‘colonial’ problem, that Australia itself would be shaken to the core of national identity. Something would need to be done to stay the flow of immorality and drunkenness if the Australian & New Zealand Army Corps was to become an effective fighting force.
Birdwood was no stranger to 1st AIF pranks, but Australian pranks were never malicious. Australians were forever getting about Egypt singing the popular 1915 Charles Vaude song, ‘If England wants a hand well here it is’, which was filled with Australian pride and self-confidence, but it was always accompanied with good natured fun. (Vaude) But, when men are bored, they will always try to create some sort of entertainment. On ‘New Year’s night the stream of returning motor-cars, gharries, and men on donkeys stretched from Gizeh to Mena-five miles of swiftly-moving carriage-lights. General Birdwood’s own motor-car was taken from the front of his headquarters, and was found some hours later deserted on the sand in the heart of Mena Camp.’ (Bean 1941, 128) But these small ‘boys will be boys’ issues were not the problem; the problem was that Cairo was known as the brothel capital of the world at the time, and whenever a soldier would get into a cab, the first thing the cabbie would say was, “Sister Street?” There were about 6 streets containing nothing but prostitutes of all nationalities in Cairo. (Adam-Smith 64) It was not something you could avoid in Cairo, even if you wanted to.
General Bridges, being that much closer to the troops, and immediately responsible for their conduct, saw the issues raised by his superior, Birdwood, as something that required immediate action. The issues came to a head for Bridges in January, 1915, when he sent a cablegram back to Australia, to Senator George Pearce,[7] requesting him to approve the stoppage of pay for any AIF soldiers who caught venereal disease. Considering that Australian soldiers were the highest paid soldier of the war, at six shillings a day[8], it would be a great shock to the system should the Army stop their pay. Pearce was so eager to show governmental support for Bridge’s request that he backdated his approval to December, 1914, in order to include those soldiers already infected. (Raden 21-22)
The ramifications of Pearce’s decision to back Bridges for the Australian troops was to be multi-faceted and harsh. The stoppage of pay was one thing, but soon there would be prison time[9] and repatriation back to Australia with the tag, ‘Discharged – Service No Longer Required’. (Raden 25) The crime was also stamped into his pay book. (Adam-Smith 70) Ex-soldiers would have to explain themselves to loved ones and face embarrassing questions as to why they had been demobbed after such patriotic send-offs. Many AIF soldiers were sending money back to family in Australia, but Pearce’s backing of Bridges would put a stop to that. A new Divisional Order 398 was introduced, which stated, “No pay will be issued while abroad for any period of absence from duty on account of venereal disease.” (Raden 22) Interestingly though, officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers were not to be included in this. The ruling would only throw fuel onto the developing fire, as would be seen by the 2nd of April, 1915. Cairo was becoming a tinderbox among the private ranks.
The Prime Minister of Australia at the time, William ‘the Little Digger’ Hughes, could only see the Australian Forces in the best possible light. “It is no doubt a very serious matter, but I should be more concerned if I believed such conduct fairly reflected the code of the Expeditionary Force generally. I don’t believe it does for a moment.” (Raden 24) But his confidence in the better nature of the AIF was still second to the final decision by Bridges to send men home as a result of contracting VD.[10] The hospital ship, A55 Kyarra, took the first load of 341 men (individuals unfit for service) back to Australia on the 3rd of February, 1915: 132 of these men had VD. (Raden 25) It should be realised perhaps, that over the course of the war there were over 400,000 cases of venereal disease in the British and Commonwealth militaries, and that “…at least 60,000 men [recorded], or 14-15 per cent of an [Australian] army of nearly 417,000, were treated for VD infections up to 1919.” (Raden 189) This number includes those who were infected more than once, and those who had joined the AIF already infected.
But what reason was there for these cases in Cairo? It should be understood, that there was not that much to do for off-duty soldiers in Cairo at night. Lance-Corporal Carl Janssen[11], was of the view that off-duty soldiers, weak from long and hot day activities in the desert, were far more prone to the wiles of the Cairo fleshpots. “I believe the proportion of victims would not have been so great had we been worked sensibly and granted day leave. Night leave left the men with weaker natures and nothing to do but visit hotels and brothels.” (Adam-Smith 67) He held that had there been day leave, then the men would have spent their money and time on trips to the hundreds of interesting places round Cairo, thus, crime and misbehaviour would have decreased tremendously. He may have been right, but when we realise that the only two descent hotels in Cairo, the Shepheard and the Continental, were, for the most part, for officers only, it left the men with little option but to visit the local cafes, wine bars and assignation houses for their ‘refreshments’.
Charles Bean, Australia’s official war correspondent, wrote the following:
To many a young Australian this city seemed a place for unlimited holiday. But Cairo is miserably poor in diversions. Outside the life of its two great hotels, Shepheard’s and the Continental, which by British tradition-although at that time not officially-were more or less reserved for officers, there was scarcely a decent amusement in the city. Proprietors of the lower cafes, chiefly Greeks, pressed upon the newcomers drinks amounting to poison, and natives along the roads sold them stuff of unheard-of vileness. Touts led them to ‘amusements’ descending to any degree of filth. Under the system of ‘Capitulations’, by which Europeans in Egypt were then subject only to their own consuls, Sir John Maxwell, the Commander-in-Chief, had little power to deal with these matters. Many a youngster plunged into excitement which seemed only too sordid when the blood cooled. For some tragedies of those early days it is difficult to forgive the authorities. (Bean 1941, 128)
While punishments were mounting, and more and more AIF troops were finding themselves facing a one way passage of shame back to Australia, it was realised that Australians back home would be quite surprised at the return of these men, so General Bridges asked Charles Bean to write something for the newspapers in Australia. The product of this article was to be a tirade of letters.
2 ~ ‘Australia’s name - A Passing Shadow’[12]
In an article which appeared in The Ballarat Star[13] on the 20th of January, 1915, and written on the 29th of December, 1914, in the Australian military base, Mena Camp, Egypt, the Australian war correspondent, Charles Bean, wrote an article that was to have far reaching effects. Some of the effects would be positive and supportive, while others would be filled with vitriol, even a few death threats. Bean had written this article by request of General Bridges, to inform the Australian public about what was happening in Egypt and why some Australian soldiers would be heading home in disgrace.
Bean opened the article with a brief statement that all in Egypt was not perfect, and that he had no intention of deceiving the Australian public. “It would be a deceit upon the people of Australia if it were reported to them that Christmas and the approaching New Year found the Australian Imperial Force without a cloud in the sky.” (Bean Jan. 1915)
However, as was common practice with Bean, he included great praise on the Australian soldier whenever he could, so, to soften the blow that was coming, he continued the article with a short litany of sentiments that was designed for two reasons; the first was to stir the Australian heart which longs for the landscape and its treasures, and the second was to apocryphally show the Australian public what they stood to lose. Bean brings the reader’s thoughts from the hot and dusty image of Egypt to the beautiful bliss of the Australian outback. “Christmas morning itself broke as clear and crisp as a midwinter day on the wrong side of the Darling River… mess huts were decorated with palm and eucalyptus” (Bean Jan. 1915)
He also gives many images of order and good organisation; only the best moral qualities of man could create and maintain such a thing. “All the camp looked ideal, with lines as straight as an architect's drawing, and streets and kitchens…some of the men who take a pride in their regiments had marked the mess tents of the regimental boundary, wide signs in white and coloured stones and pebbles as neat as a Roman Mosaic.” (Bean Jan. 1915)
The high moral quality and good nature of the average Australian soldier was practically rammed down the throats of Australians back home, as Bean continued with various character building statements: “A Christmas dinner has been provided in many cases by funds subscribed by the men themselves… The columns that swung down the hills from their various church parades, with their big shoulders and long Australian limbs, all swinging together, look half as powerful again as ordinary regiments.” (Bean Jan. 1915)
Bean’s love of the Australian soldier was not something he held exclusively, as he notes General Birdwood’s great admiration for them as well. “[Birdwood] has seen many sorts of soldiers under many different conditions during his short and brilliant career, but one could not help wondering whether he has ever commanded a more: magnificent force than this.”[14] (Bean Jan. 1915) Yet, here is where Bean raises his concern about Australia’s good name.
Bean moves onto the problem at hand by showing how a small number of soldiers have become the subject of concern. He states the following: “Cairo is one of the great pleasure resorts of the world, and a place where the soldiers in any neighbouring camp can always have a reasonably enjoyable time during their hours of leave, provided they exercise the same amount of restraint as the ordinary tourist, but curtain scenes have occurred, and have become more common during the past few days, which go a good way beyond that and which are already affecting the reputation of Australia in the outside world.” (Bean Jan. 1915) This was the big issue for many of the decision makers at the time. If Australian soldiers were going to cast such a shadow over Australia’s reputation, then it would follow that Australia would have little to offer when it came to military activities. For someone like Birdwood, let alone Bridges and the Australian ministers of war, this would be a devastating blow. Kitchener, the famous Earl of Khartoum, would never consider Australian forces as worthy allies. Bean’s concerns reflected those of Birdwood and Bridges, when he reports the words of a ‘most distinguished man of the British Army’: “They are as fine a body of men physically as I have ever seen, but do all Australians drink quite as much?” (Bean Jan. 1915)
Bean then echoes a claim made by Birdwood in his Divisional Headquarters communication to Bridges: “…unless he [the Australian soldier] is doing his best to keep himself efficient he is swindling the Government which has sent him to represent it and fight for it.” (Birdwood) Bean maintains that there are some who have not lived up to Birdwood’s standards, and that they are the cause of the problem, stating that they were accepted for overseas service, but are unfit.
In this part of the article, Bean points the finger directly at those he believes to be responsible for the problem, and he pulls no punches. He holds firm to the iconic Australian image for the most part, but holds little value in members of the previous war in Africa. “…men who had seen service in South Africa or the regular army…who [lack] the necessary moral qualities…[are] apt to do more harm than good.” (Bean Jan. 1915) Bean maintains that it is only one or two percent of Australian troops are of this type, but he holds fast to his criticism of them. He says that the ‘older ones are corrupting the younger ones.’ Bean gives a good account of the type of character involved. “…a certain class of old soldier is given to the very childish habit of showing off before the young soldier, and giving him examples of the sort of thing that he thinks may with impunity be done by anyone that knows the ropes, whatever the reason it has been noticed, too many people to admit of doubt that whilst many of the most capable and splendid members of the force are men with South African experience here, besides having the best physique, are man for man more highly strung, and, if anything quicker-witted.” (Bean Jan. 1915)
Some Australians ‘within the ranks’ are described as uncontrolled, slovenly and even dirty, and Bean notes that in many cases, these men are wearing South African ribbons. He does recognise, however, that these men, since returning from the Boer War have never had any settled occupation, and that they were generally the first to enlist when recruiting for the present force was begun. In some way then, they were to be pitied and lorded, but they were still, as tradition would have it, to be made the scapegoats of this situation.[15] Bean postulated that the discipline in the previous war may have been ‘much slacker’ than is needed now. According to Bean, many ‘young soldiers’ had opinions about these men, and Bean quotes some: “It's the likes of them that are going to spoil the game for the rest of us, and lose us our leave.” and “The fellows are getting a bit fed up with them down amongst our lot.” (Bean Jan. 1915)
Having said that, the point of Bean’s article was not to complain that decent young Australian soldiers were losing their leave, but rather, “…cause Australia her good name in the outside world…[so that] day by day the reputation of Australia slowly vanishes before the actions of a handful of rowdies.” (Bean Jan. 1915)
Bean states that even though the situation has not yet reached the point of no return, he does say that New Zealand has already taken steps to ‘rid themselves of a certain number of men who were doing little good in their force.’ Similar steps were to be taken with Australian soldiers, and that the Australian public should know why these steps were being taken. He warned Australians to beware of any AIF members coming back ‘pitching stories before admiring crowds at the local hotel’, as they may have come home under a cloud. Some of these men could even say that they had resigned because of some moral reason, but they were not to be trusted.
Bean gave a few reasons why Australian soldiers might be transported back to Australia. They could be invalided back through serious sickness, conscientious objectors, refusal to be vaccinated, serious misconduct or contracting venereal disease. While some returns to Australia would have no effect of the nation’s reputation, some would, and it was for this reason that action had to be taken. For Bean, ‘a passing shadow’ was crossing over ‘Australia’s name’.
Bean directs attention to the Australian Light Horse Camp up at Maadi, which was easier to leave without permission, and it posed no trouble for the rowdy spirits amongst the Light Horse[16] and artillery. He referred to them as ‘wasters’, yet, there was a contributing factor to the Light Horse’s behaviour. While Mena camp, near to the pyramids, was nearby to a small Arab village, the Light Horse camp was ‘next door to the new garden suburb of Maadi’, and as a result, Maadi was much closer to Cairo than Mena camp. (Bean Jan. 1915)
3 ~ ‘To Our Critics’[17]
On the 27th of May, 1915, a poem appeared in the Northern Territory Times and Gazette in Darwin, Australia. Originally, it had appeared in an Egyptian newspaper, ‘The Egyptian Mail’, but it was written in response to Bean’s article. It was a poem filled with the naturally distinctive character that was all too common in the Australian forces at the time. The poet’s name was Francis Edmund Westbrook, better knowns as Frank.[18] He was born in South Yarra, Victoria, in 1889, and served with the 2nd Field Artillery Brigade and was at the landing at Gallipoli on the 25th of April, 1915. (He would suffer from shell shock while serving on the Western Front later in the war.) The fact that Westbrook was serving in an artillery unit may have flavoured his vitriol, as Bean had accused both Light Horse and artillery of bad behaviour and being ‘wasters’. Having said that, he would go on to become a little-known, but important Australian war poet.
In his poem, ‘To Our Critics’, Westbrook called Bean a ‘whining wowser’, and said that Bean should not think so badly of the AIF in Egypt. He even gives Bean some advice at the end which Bean would take, if his later writings about the Australian soldier is anything to go by. What follows are stanzas 1, 7, 8 and 11.
Aint you got no blanky savvy, Cease your wowseristic whining.
Have you got no better use, Tell the truth and play the game,
Than to fling back home yer inky And we only ask fair dinkum
Products of yer pen's abuse? (St 1) How we keep Australia's name. (St 8)
Say, yer cannot be Australian. Then write home nice and proper
Let us say in our defence, 'Bout the boys that's all true blue,
Yer can read it on our coinage, And' they'll like you better, Mister –
"Honi soit qui mal y pense." (St 7) That's my advice to you! (St 11)
(Westbrook May 1915)
Westbrook’s poem is filled with characteristic Australianisms of speech. He writes in the same way most Australian working class men spoke at the time, using demotic style in his verse. He doesn’t try to answer Bean’s article’s accusations specifically, but rather, generally. He uses a rather typical form of sanitised rough language, primarily to get it published, but also to show his ‘restrained’ anger; still one of ‘the boys’, but able to parley in the literary rags of the educated man. He accuses Bean of defaming the good name of Australia’s sons because of his article, - “Do yer think they'll praise yer action/In defamin' our fair name?” - and states that the actions of the few say nothing about the many - “One swallow makes no summer” - which is actually what Bean had said himself. Westbrook accuses Bean of playing God and big-noting himself because of his rank. Probably the greatest insult Westbrook could muster was in the line, “Say, yer cannot be Australian”, but then he also levelled the great Australian insult of labelling Bean a ‘wowser’ and not being ‘fair dinkum’. It was a well written tirade of poetic vitriol written in the heat of the moment, and Westbrook, like so many others around him, waited (not silently) in the desert for what would come next.
There had been many responses to Bean’s article, and some of them would have a chilling effect on Bean. Some of the shocking reprisals against Bean included being threatened with tarring and feathering, being told he would ‘stop a bullet’ sooner or later, and becoming the target of written and verbal attacks. (Raden 25) With the stroke of his pen back on the 29th of December, 1914, Bean had literarily written himself into the bad-books of many angry Australian service men in Egypt.
In an article in the St George Call, on the 8th of May, 1915, an outraged George Campbell wrote the following: “Capt. Has-Bean’s letters are a slander on the whole force… Capt. Bean has been speaking with a very small weak self-satisfied voice through an exceptionally large hat. Anyhow his job is reporting, not as a critic. The people of Cairo, the highly educated and refined English and French gentlemen who invite the troops to their homes to meet their wives and daughters, and have seen the behaviour of troops in a garrison town for years are much better able to criticize than a stay-at-home scribe, and their opinion is vastly different from ‘Has-Beans’ …” (Campbell) Campbell’s reaction to Bean’s article, like Westbrook’s, lacked the knowledge of why Bean wrote it in the first place. But the tenner of Campbell’s response was all too common.
Suffice it to say, there were numerous ‘letters to the editor’ written on behalf of the Australian soldier’s character, attacking Bean’s words. Addressing morals, drunkenness and discipline, ‘An Australian in Egypt’, ‘A Salvation Army Coon’, a ‘Platoon Sergeant’ and various others, wrote with great fervour to have the record put straight. Some would shine a more impartially condemning light on one of the problems facing Australians as they marked time in Egypt: Lieutenant Ernie Harris, 3rd Machine Gun Company, 12th Battalion, in a letter to his mother wrote about life in Mena Camp: “Nothing to do. Rotting in camp…You need never be afraid of me going to the dogs after going through this campaign because the things I see at times instead of attracting me simply fill me with disgust.” (Adam-Smith 63)
4 ~ ‘Australia Should be Proud’[19]
Carl Janssen wrote to a friend – “…the only reliable man writing for Australian papers, from what we can read in copies received, is Capt. Bean. No account of his which I have seen has been incorrect in any detail but one very slight one and that immaterial.” (Adam-Smith 66) Bean’s article had done far more than General Bridges had envisaged. It had opened up a divisive crack in the Anzac’s camped in Egypt. It had turned the usually friendly open-hand of Australian soldiers into fists, and set men with little else to do to argument and finger-pointing. Bean needed to do something, and set his position clear for the men he had the greatest of respect – the Anzacs.
In Bean’s follow-up article, dated the 28th of February, 1915, he states very clearly that he was misunderstood. He states that his words had been “…so twisted and misquoted by a certain newspaper or newspapers as to appear to be an attack on the Australian troops in Egypt.” (Bean Mar. 1915) Bean’s intention had been the exact opposite. He had wanted only to state that a very small percentage of men had been found guilty of inappropriate behaviour, while the vast majority had done nothing to be ashamed of; rather the opposite. Most of the men being sent home were honestly repatriated home as “…men whose health has broken down, often through hard work and exposure, and who are bitterly disappointed at not being able to go on.” (Bean Mar. 1915)
Bean even stated that there was ‘nothing that had occurred which does not happen in Australian and other cities every day.’ (Bean Mar. 1915) It was not so much a retraction, as it was an explanation that the behaviour, while not good military behaviour, was nothing too out of the ordinary. The truth, according to Bean, about Australian soldiers serving in Egypt was that they were the very source of national pride and character. “…Australians, if they could only see it, would be very proud indeed.” (Bean Mar. 1915)
Bean’s response in this article was quite possibly motivated by one of two things; either he was afraid of alienating himself from the men he wanted to write about, or that he literally feared the threats against him from various incensed individuals from within the ranks. (Raden 25) Either way, Bean was motivated to make things right. In truth, he was between a rock and a hard place, for when General Bridges asked him to write the first article addressing the shocking prior events, Bean found himself unable to refuse. He needed to stay on-side with the Australian commanders, otherwise he would find it increasingly difficult to have access to information later on when in the front line when information was to become his very bread and butter. Bean knew that failure to write the article requested by Bridges was more or less professional suicide, yet actually writing it could lead to something far worse.
Bean was not a soldier, but he was most certainly as brave as many of the Anzacs whom he would write about over the next 3 or 4 years. At Gallipoli, he would be there throughout, living with the men and dodging bullet and shell, putting himself at risk to get the story. (In fact, Bean would be shot in the leg while on the peninsula.) Perhaps not in the front-line, but he was there with them doing what he could to make their story known. Yet, his article dealing with the three vices of Cairo, low morality, drink and discipline, were to be a beginning no war correspondent could possibly want.
5 ~ ‘On Our Critic’s Apologies’[20]
Bean had probably thought that all this trouble would now be behind him, since he had written his correction. He would have felt that he had done all he could do to set the matter straight once and for all; putting an end to the matter as far as he was concerned. But this was not to be the case. In a poem, ‘On Our Critic’s Apologies’, Westbrook continues the name calling, referring to Bean as a ‘crayfished Mr. Critic’. He tells Bean that he threw mud at Australia’s name and sends a poisoned dart into the hearts of wives and mothers, but Westbrook ends by stating that if Bean does right by the Anzac, then he will gain the firmest friendship of those young men who Bean values the most. What follows are stanzas 1, 5, 6, 9 and 13.
So you crayfished Mr. Critic, Will they shatter all the fabric
From your journalistic stand; That your venomed pen has spun. (St 6)
In an impolitic manner For our loved ones, wives and mothers,
You have surely shown your hand. (St 1) All have felt the poisoned dart
Will your "pardon me’s" bring solace Of your journalistic venom
Or dispel the haunting dread; With your subtle cruel art. (Stanza 9)
Your apologies bring respite So just train your pen, and send home
For the bitter things you said. (St 5) Just the plain unvarnished truth;
Will they give us back our comrades, And you'll gain the firmest friendship
Who our presence there will shun; Of Australia's bravest youth. (St 13)
(Westbrook April 1916)
Most certainly unknowingly, Westbrook makes reference to Leon Gellert’s ‘poisoned spears’ in the poem ‘The Old and the New’, when, in stanzas 6 and 9, he uses such images as ‘venomed pen’ and ‘poisoned dart’. The implied nature of poison and venom is one of deceit and low character, unlike the ‘open blows’ of Mars in Gellert’s poem.
Westbrook was offering Bean a way out of his fate; write true and fair, and the Anzacs will befriend him. Stand by them and they will stand by him. It was the essence of Australian character that has lasted throughout the years; give a man a fair go and he will give you the same in return. It was the basis of Australian friendship, and something that would be made abundantly clear throughout the war. Bean had learnt a valuable lesson, but it was not a lesson he had asked to learn. Never again would he raise his pen in such a way. Bean was now a correspondent of the men he lived with rather than the establishment he served.
Conclusion
After all the ‘ink slinging’ and ‘paper cuts’ that had taken place between the two camps of Bean and Westbrook, one would think that, having resolved the issue it would have simply faded into the background and never been mentioned again. But sadly, that was not to be. Two infamous incidents occurred in Cairo and were satirically referred to as the 1st and 2nd Battles of the Wazzir:[21] Good Friday, 2nd of April and 31st of July, respectively; both in 1915. The great Australian comic, C.J. Dennis, wrote a classic poem[22] of 21 stanzas about the April incident, and he spoke in a very typical street dialect of the time:
If old Pharaoh, King uv Egyp', 'e 'ad lived to see the day
When they tidied up 'is 'eap uv shame an' sin,
Well, 'e mighter took it narsty, fer our fellers 'ave a way
Uv completin' any job that they begin.
An' they might 'ave left 'is Kingship nursin' gravel-rash in bed. . .
But old Pharaoh, King uv Egyp', 'e is dead. (St 21)
(Dennis)
Dennis, like most Australians of the 1st AIF, was full of good humour and always up for a laugh. The Australian of the Great War was primarily an egalitarian, believing in giving others (and himself) a fair go. The riots in the Wazzir were the result of various things, such as raised prices, foul and evil drinks (often containing urine for colour),[23] trickery and bad dealing from local Arabs as well as boredom. It was always the case with Australian soldiers abroad, that if one was in trouble, all that was needed was for him to call out, ‘Aussie here!’ and before he could blink, ten other Aussies were standing beside him to fend off the trouble. The Battle of the Wizzir had this character, and Australian troops rallied when the call went out. This was the same call Westbrook shouted when he wrote his response to Bean. It was the same call shouted by Australians throughout the streets of Cairo and any other city around the world throughout the war. It was the same call Australians heard when England needed help and Charles Vaude wrote the popular song, If England wants a hand, well here it is! (Vaude)
According to one Australian, the Battle of the Wassir was the ‘best fun any of us had till the war ended four years later’. (Adam-Smith 71) Interestingly, Charles Bean was strangely quiet when it came to the Battle of the Wazzir. In the official history, which was written by Bean, the story was mentioned only in a footnote. It would appear that the war of words had taken its toll on Bean, and that Westbrook’s poetry was the sword which delivered the literary coup de grâce.
References
Adam-Smith, Patsy. 2014. The Anzacs. Penguin: Melbourne
Bean, C.E.W. 1941. The Story of ANZAC from the outbreak of war to the end of the first phase of the Gallipoli Campaign, May 4, 1915. Chap 7: Volume I. Angus & Robertson: Sydney
Dunbar, Raden. 2014. The Secrets of the Anzacs – The Untold Story of Venereal Disease in the Australia Army, 1914-1919. Scribe: Melbourne
Gellert, Leon. 1917. Songs of a Campaign. Angus & Robertson: Sydney
Grey, Jeffrey. 1999. A Military History of Australia (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press: Melbourne
Vaude, Charles. 1915. If England Wants a Hand, Well, Here it is! Dinsdales’: Melbourne
Unpublished
Birdwood, William. Australian War Memorial Archives - RCDIG0000113 - William Birdwood Letters - WBL 28-12-1914
Internet sources
Bean, C.E.W. "The Expedition" The Ballarat Star (Vic.: 1865 - 1924) 20 Jan 1915: 1. Web. 20 Jan 2016 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article154580117 Retrieved January 20, 2016
Bean, C.E.W. "Our Troops in Egypt." The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW: 1842 - 1954) 1 Mar 1915: 9. Web. 11 Feb 2016 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15535892 Retrieved January 15, 2016
Campbell, George. "[No heading]." St George Call (Kogarah, NSW: 1904 - 1923) 8 May 1915: 5. Web. 13 Feb 2016 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-page19447255 Retrieved January 12, 2016
Dennis, C.J. “The Battle of the Wazzir.” http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/denniscj/gmick/wazzir.html Retrieved 20 January, 2016
Reinecke, Carl (May 2010) “The Other Charge of the Light Brigade”. Griffith Review – Edition 28: Still the Lucky Country. Griffith University. https://griffithreview.com/articles/the-other-charge-of-the-light-brigade/ Retrieved 20 February, 2016
Westbrook, Frank. "To Our Critics" Northern Territory Times and Gazette (Darwin, NT: 1873 - 1927) 27 May 1915: 10. Web. 19 Jan 2016 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3271511 Retrieved January 19, 2016
Westbrook, Frank. "On Our Critic’s Apologies" Bairnsdale Advertiser and Tambo and Omeo Chronicle (Vic.: 1882 - 1918) 24 Apr 1915: 3 Edition: MORNING.. Web. 21 Jan 2016 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article74169121 Retrieved January 21, 2016
Notes
[1] In 1770 Captain James Cook landed in Botany Bay, home of the Eora people, and claimed possession of the East Coast of Australia for Britain under the doctrine of 'terra nullius' – ‘nobody’s land’.
[2] When the Constitution of Australia came into force, on the 1st of January, 1901, the colonies collectively became states of the Commonwealth of Australia, establishing a system of federalism in Australia.
[3] (Birdwood)
[4] Major-General William R. Birdwood: Commander of the Australian & New Zealand Army Corps
[5] Major-General William T. Bridges: Commander of the 1st Australian Division
[6] General Sir John Maxwell: Commander of all British forces in Egypt
[7] Deputy Leader of the party and pro conscription. For much of 1916, Prime Minister Hughes was out of the country as a member of the Imperial war cabinet. During this time, over seven months, Pearce was acting prime minister.
[8] Six shillings was more than three times the British soldier’s pay, which was about 1s 6d per day. Because of the high rate of pay Australian soldiers were getting, they were given the nickname, ‘six bob a day tourists’. (Grey 85)
[9] Orders issued to the military guard of the barbed wire compound for VD patients were harsh and grim. The compound was in the Egyptian desert at Mena. All ‘patients’ (prisoners) had to wear white armbands and all were locked into quarantine. No one, guard or other, could speak with patients. The contraction of VD was considered to be a crime. The hospital (VD compound) was to be a penitentiary for imposing dread for the consequences of sexual misconduct. The ‘patient’ was made to feel like a criminal and was deterred by fear; fear of losing pay, fear of being found out by his family, fear of losing the respect of other men, fear of the grisly sights and circumstances of a VD hospital. (Adam-Smith 69-70) “During the year that ended February 1916, 5,924 Australians were treated at the isolation hospital for venereal infection with an average stay in hospital of 35 days.” (Adam-Smith 75)
[10] The three common venereal diseases at the time were gonorrhoea, syphilis and chancroid. Treatment was lengthy, brutal and uncertain. The antibiotic penicillin, the first fast-acting anti-gonorrhoeal and anti-syphilitic drug, would not exist for another 27 years, and erythromycin, the fast antibiotic cure for chancroid, would not exist for another 37 years.
[11] Lance Corporal Carl Wilhelm Janssen - 5th Australian Infantry Battalion - Died 25th April, 1915, from shrapnel at the landing at Gallipoli.
[12] (Bean Jan. 1915)
[13] A Victorian newspaper
[14] “I have just been writing to Lord Kitchener telling him how well-nigh overwhelmed I fell at finding myself in command of such a magnificent body of men as we have here – no man could feel otherwise. He will, I know, follow every movement of ours with unfailing interest, and surly we will never risk disappointing him by allowing a few of our men to give us a bad name. This applies equally to every one of us, from General down to the last joined Drummer.” (Birdwood)
[15] The use of the scapegoat holds a distinct and infamous place in Australian military history. The most notorious case was the Court Martial and execution of the Bushveldt Carbineers’ Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant and John Hancock in Pietersburg, South Africa, in January, 1902, during the Boer War. Still to this day, a bitter memory for many Australians.
[16] The Australian Light Horse would be part of another action back in Australia in February, 1916. It would be known as the Casula Riots in Liverpool. In what was called, ‘the other charge of the Light Brigade’, Australian troops at the Casula base rioted against increased training hours. The riot lead them to steel a train and take it to Sydney where they ransacked the city’s pubs and shops. The action lead to prohibition after 6pm and increased organised crime in Australia. (Reinecke)
[17] (Westbrook May 1915)
[18] Westbrook was a serving member of the 2nd Field Artillery at the time. Bean had levelled criticism at the ‘rowdy spirits’ of the Light Horse and artillery, referring to some of them as ‘wasters’.
[19] (Bean Mar. 1915)
[20] (Westbrook April 1916)
[21] The Wazzir or Wazza: the Haret et Wasser, near Shepherd's Hotel in Cairo. It was a red-light district in Cairo.
[22] “Dennis wrote the accompanying verses soon after reports of the first "Battle of the Wazzir" reached Australia. He intended them for inclusion in The Moods of Ginger Mick, but when the censor intervened he stopped publication and issued only a few copies in "unrevised proof" form, dated 12 July 1916.” (Dennis)
[23] “It was expensive and it was reckoned that the Gippo’s pissed in it to give it colour.” (Adam-Smith 72)
Comentarios