What is the qualification for the ANZAC category?

+7 votes
327 views

I am interested to know who qualifies for the ANZAC sticker, or asked another way, who doesn't qualify? I can find nothing on the ANZAC Project pages that actually addresses this important point.

I note from an early post announcing the project on G2G, Sep 15, 2013, "Paul Bech has now made the Anzac Page a Project ,the Anzac Project is  for Australian and New Zealand Military Personnel who fought in any of the wars if you are  intrested in this Project just let us know Terry". This could be interpreted as if you didn't "fight", then you don't qualify but I don't think that was the intention of the statement which was merely announcing the start of the project.

Looking elsewhere for inspiration, I found the "Discovering ANZACS" website, which appears to be a site of National Archives of Australia and Archives New Zealand, [https://www.discoveringanzacs.naa.gov.au/]

They offer government records about Australians and New Zealanders in World War I and the Boer War. Again, I don't think they are attempting to define who qualifies, they are merely stating what they have to offer. 

What can we agree on?

Try 1. It's limited to Australians and New Zealanders. No I've fallen at the first hurdle. There are plenty of other nationalities represented, and deservedly so.

Try 2. It's limited to Australian and New Zealand Military personnel who served during a war. Getting closer, but what about the nurses and other non-military people who all "served" in their own way. I note Mark Rogers post dated 25 April 2019: "And beyond the Service men and women, there were a lot of others worthy of note, such as the non-military medical staff, Salvos, merchant mariners, munitions workers etc. They also served in their own ways." and Melanie Paul's comment: "Also Land Army girls/women."

I agree with Mark, they are worthy of note, but do they qualify for an ANZAC sticker?

Another group I came across was school and university cadets. Do they qualify? I wouldn't have thought they qualified but I'm not knowledgeable about that organisation's links with the army.

What about someone in the Army Reserves?

It all gets a bit messy and I'm no wordsmith but I think it will require some discussion to get agreement and either a defining statement or at least a set of guidelines which would then take some prominent position on the ANZAC project page.

in Policy and Style by Dave Roberts G2G5 (5.8k points)
recategorized by Jillaine Smith
Timely question, as I was going to ask, as I have had an ANZAC sticker added on two of my family profiles, my first cousins Hayton-133 and Hayton-209 but not Hayton-210 (RAF) or Hayton-212 (WAAF). I had assumed that only those in the ANZAC corps could use the sticker, so I had not added it to any of my family who fought in any war. For example, do my uncle Cade-704,  who won the MC, or uncle Evans-28501 qualify? So a precise definition would be useful.
If someone was a part of a unit that makes up the Corp, they should have the sticker. John Fade should definitely have it!

7 Answers

+6 votes
Wouldn't it include all members of Aust and NZ military during WW1 and WW2, including those born elsewhere?

I also have the same questions about the other groups you mention.
by Leandra Ford G2G6 Mach 8 (86.2k points)
No, it wouldn't.

Parts of our Army during World War I were in the ANZAC corps, but all our ANZAC's were in our military
I concur, Richard. ANZAC is purely an acronym for one Corps, not the entire Australian Imperial Force (AIF), let alone the whole Australian Military Force (AMF).
+6 votes
The acroynm ANZAC should be informing of who (Australia and New Zealand). The corps first existed in World War I. They were later reformed into I ANZAC and II ANZAC before being folded into other units or disbanded.
They did not exist in the Second Boer War. Another unit was formed for World War II.

As  Project Coordinator for the New Zealand project (one of the projects in which ANZAC should be sub-project for (the other two being Australia and Military &War), I'd spent a fair bit of time working on the actual composition for the units. I had tried to leave links to where I had found the information.

Yes, foreign Nationals could technically be deemed an ANZAC with their record denotes that was were they served. The medical staff for one get the sticker because they are a part of the composition so yes a sticker however...

When this subproject was originally created, I'm not sure if we (the New Zealand project) had actually been consulted on discussions that were made. Hence the conflicting World War I category (which continues to be unresolved).

Edit: The ANZAC Project while giving the impression that it is setup for the honouring of those under the ANZAC name is actually deceiving everything in that it is actually for all intents and purposes honouring all Australian military (read the information in the Free Space Profiles!!!)
by Richard Shelley G2G6 Pilot (197k points)
edited by Richard Shelley
The Second World War ANZACs only existed for six weeks, April-May 1941, for those active in the Greek-Crete Campaign.  We ought to forget its use as it causes the confusion.
+12 votes

Dictionary.com defines ANZAC as a soldier in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (1914–18).

The Australian War Memorial (see https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym) defines it also as those soldiers in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.  The term was coined in 1915 so doesn't include anyone before that date e.g Boer War etc.  Quoting from the Australian War Memorial: Soon after [Gallipoli], “Anzac” was used to refer to the men themselves. At first an Anzac was a man who was at the landing and who fought on Gallipoli. Later it was used for any Australian or New Zealand soldier of the First World War. 

Other First World War ANZAC formations

After the allied withdrawal from Gallipoli, the Australian and New Zealand forces in Egypt were expanded. The ANZAC was split into two new formations called I ANZAC Corps and II ANZAC Corps. Initially, I ANZAC Corps comprised the 1st and 2nd Australian Divisions and the New Zealand division, while the 4th and 5th Australian Divisions were assigned to II ANZAC Corps. Later, the New Zealand Division was transferred to II ANZAC Corps. Both corps were transferred to France and fought on the Western Front until November 1917, when the five Australian formations were regrouped into a single Australian Corps.

Also in March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed from three Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade for service in Sinai and Palestine.

In 1916-17 a joint signals unit, the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, operated with the British expeditionary force in Mesopotamia (now Iraq).

In the Second World War, a new ANZAC was formed during the short Greek campaign of April 1941 when the 6th Australian Division and the New Zealand Division were joined under command of I ANZAC Headquarters (redesignated as ANZAC Corps).

A month after the Australian government committed the army to ground operations in Korea, New Zealand and Australian army chiefs discussed the formation of an ANZAC force for Korea. However, nothing came from the talks.

During the Vietnam War, two New Zealand infantry companies were attached to the 2nd, 4th, and 6th Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment. They were designated 2RAR/NZ (ANZAC), 4RAR/NZ (ANZAC), and 6RAR/NZ (ANZAC).

by Deborah Talbot G2G6 Mach 5 (50.9k points)
Personally, I don't have a strong view of how the term should be applied on Wikitree - but it would be nice if we could be consistent.

As I've said before, all those who served deserve recognition, and not all who served were military. However we look it, I can't see how the non-military people (e.g. munitions workers, Salvation Army, civilian nurses, merchant marine, Land Army girls) can be considered ANZACs. The "Discovering Anzacs" website is trying to cover all these people who served. (I have reservations about the name they've chosen for the website, but the scope is worthy - note they use Anzacs, not ANZACs).

Some argue strongly for the formal and narrow definition of ANZAC.

I have also seen it argued on G2G that the term is now in more general use in Australia (& possibly NZ) & covers ALL Australian/New Zealand veterans/service personnel. Certainly, the "ANZACs on Wikitree" grouping is using it that way.
I agree with what you are saying.  The media are causing confusion by pushing for an all-encompassing term.  They are even confusing the use of the Flanders Poppy (Remembrance Day) and Gallipoli sprig of rosemary (ANZAC).  Aussie soldiers have never called themselves ANZACs, they are Diggers.
+6 votes
I prefer to avoid the term ANZAC for all except The Great or First World War.  Even then, I much prefer to link people to their unit, than to a generic category that will bury everyone in the crowd.  For service units (as opposed to fighting units) I place profiles under their corps where possible, as there are just too many to be practicable on WikiTree.
by Kenneth Evans G2G6 Pilot (157k points)
+4 votes
The term ANZAC refers to the field organization that were under the Command and Control of the BEF which included units of the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) and NZEF (New Zealand Expeditionary Force) units.  ANZAC is appropriately applied to the periods, 1914-1916 (WWI) and WWII briefly in Greece in WWII.  The key point is that the TERM ANZAC would apply to members on strength with the AIF and NZEF and served as part of the ANZAC corps.

Members of the AIF and NZEF may include foreign nationals if approved and taken on strength.  If the their units were part of the ANZAC Corps then they qualify as well.

This of course is dependent on the Policy in effect at the time as dictated by the Commonwealth of Australia.

I don't how this can apply but worthy of consideration.  

Another consideration would be how members of the AIF and NZEF transfered to the Royal Flying Corps, Royal Air Force and Royal Naval Flying Corps.  These members may have been on strength with the AIF/NZEF and fought as members of the ANZAC corps. Also members of the AFC (Australian Flying Corps) supported the ANZAC Corps.

Also note (at least in Canada and would suspect also in Australia / New Zealand) there were two classes of nurses.  Those who were part of the Army Medical Corps and those who were part Voluntary Nursing Organizations.

I look forward to see how this develops.  My interest is primarily Canada in World War One.  I am research other organization to see how they compare.
by Elgin Smith G2G5 (5.1k points)
+3 votes
Very difficult to answer, Dave. And I doubt that any single person has the full answer. I certainly don't. The way I read the scenario though is that whilst the term ANZAC technically belongs to those active servicemen who fought within a combined Australia-New Zealand formation, i.e., ANZAC Corps of the First World War or the ANZAC Corps of the Greek-Crete Campaign of the Second World War.  Culturally, however, the term has been raided by the media and appears to now engulf all Australian and New Zealand servicepeople of all wars.  In similar vein, they have forced the Flanders poppy on all commemorations, whereas the Gallipoli sprig of rosemary is about ANZAC and the poppy for Remembrance Day.  All encompassing was never the intention of the term.  Australian soldiers have never regarded themselves as ANZACs, but as Diggers.  I am endeavouring to bring some 'sense' to the categories; with actual service in units under the Military & War Project and the cultural commemoration under ANZACs Project.
by Kenneth Evans G2G6 Pilot (157k points)
Thanks Ken, that’s a really useful contribution.
+3 votes
I've just included it on any persons profile, whom I find a WWI or WWII enlistment for in the National Australia Archives. (Having gone back and looked) It hasn't gotten any more complicated than that for me so far. Then I highlight which ever details are most interesting.

If we become more specific, we'll need more stickers to reflect that.
by Ben Molesworth G2G6 Mach 4 (43.5k points)
edited by Ben Molesworth

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
0 answers
+5 votes
2 answers
+7 votes
6 answers
183 views asked Apr 24, 2020 in The Tree House by Fiona McMichael G2G6 Pilot (156k points)
+15 votes
4 answers
151 views asked Apr 24, 2019 in The Tree House by Fiona McMichael G2G6 Pilot (156k points)
+14 votes
10 answers
+13 votes
4 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...