Although success was found for the Australians in World War 1, it certainly didn’t come without a cost and definitely had severe effects. Throughout the Great War, Australians suffered majorly during 1917 because of the following: limited progress was made on the Western Front in comparison to other years that lead to a resoundingly high number of casualties, thus causing the social issues and political issues because of the lack of enlistments to go to war.
Throughout the duration of World War 1, different years saw vastly different levels of progress made by Australians, however, none compared to the lack thereof seen in 1917. To assess progress at war the land captured and defended must be known because these two factors are what defines progress at war. 1914, in terms of progress for Australians, was a successful year when the Australian Naval & Military Expeditionary Forces (AN&MEF) captured several islands around New Guinea. 1915 and 1916 could be interpreted as very similar in terms of battle progress, either allowing the British Empire to focus all their force on the Western Front or damaging the enemies heavily. Both years saw similar levels of progress, succeeding in the Battle of Suez Canal and the Battle of Pozieres respectively, and similar levels of losses, making no progress at Gallipoli and Fromelles respectively. 1917 was a year that saw minimal progress for Australian Imperial Forces (AIF) on the Western Front spread across three major battles, namely, the Battle of Bullecourt , the Battle of Messines and the Battle of Ypres . Of these costly battles only the Battle of Messines was a victory, however, this victory lead the Battle of Ypres which was responsible for 38,093 Australian casualties and was therefore, ultimately, extremely costly. 1918, unlike all other years, was completely successful because this was the year that lead to Germany signing the Armistice on the 11th of November – announcing absolute defeat of Germany . The chain of success began in July when Australia captured Hamel Spur which assisted in the success at Mont St Quentin and Péronne as well as the capturing of the Hindenburg line in October. Before any more progress could be made for the Australians, defeat was announced by the Germans because of the four month domination on the Western Front. Progress of the Australians WW1 campaign, summarised above, clearly displayed that 1917 was the lonesome year with losses and no success to back it up, therefore, confirming it to be the worst year for Australians in terms of battle progress.
Similar to Australian progress in WW1, success was also found minimally during 1917 in comparison to other years. Success at war not only considers the progress made but also the costs involved in making it – mainly being the number of deaths involved in making the progress. 1914, for Australians, could be considered the ideal year at war because of the combination of extensive progress with a total of 0 deaths . Both 1915 and 1916 saw similar, average levels of progress with 7,819 and 12,823 deaths respectively . Although these death tallies are high and, potentially, not worth the level of progress they do not compare to that of 1917. To justify, 1917 saw 20,628 Australian deaths at war which was remarkably larger than any other year even though there were dramatic improvements in the medicinal support at the Battle of Ypres for Australians . Although progress in Messines was made that year, it lead to most of the deaths of 1917 at the Battle of Ypres and thus, it could be argued that the progress was not worth the number of deaths. 1918, similar to other years, found 12,553 Australian deaths that were all on the Western Front. However, it could be argued that these deaths were worthy sacrifices to the winning of the war because, if the war hadn’t ended, the potential for far more deaths in following years is completely relevant. Therefore it is proven that the least successful year of World War 1 because of the minimal progress along with the largest amount of deaths.
World War 1 didn’t only see extreme hardships for Australian diggers in 1917 but also those that remained on home soil in the form of social impacts. The outcomes of the war lead to decreasing morale and several riots against conscription. After 1915, the number of men enlisting to go to war decreased constantly, because news about the number of Australian deaths had spread, until it reached an all time low in 1917 of 2,500 enlistments per month . The number of enlistments during the war is an accurate representation of the morale that the population possessed in regards to the war. Therefore, in this case the morale was lowest in 1917. As a result of the low morale, along with political affairs, there were several riots throughout 1917 such as the great strike and the food riots . These riots, although not devastating, had negative social effects on Australia in 1917 because of the temporary loss of workforce to rioting, minimal number of deaths and the social unrest. Above is is clearly evident that World War 1 had harsh social effects on Australia in 1917 in the form of morale destruction and excessive rioting.
The lack of enlistments/low morale shown by Australians in 1917 led to two referendums that would cause further political issues throughout 1917. In the early years of World War 1, Australian troops were all voluntary enlistments . However, as time progressed, people of Australia became aware of the large number of deaths oversees and it became apparent that the war wasn’t going to finish any time in the near future. This led to a constant, rapid decrease in the number of enlistments for men to go to war that stooped below the monthly requirement of the British Empire – being 5,500 men per month. In order for Australians to satisfy this requisite the prime minister, William Hughes, extended a referendum to the public, in the latter months of 1916, that would legalise conscription to war for Australian men. When it came time for the public to vote, after tense argumentation , it resulted in an extremely close result with 1,087,557 for and 1,160,033 against , thus voluntary enlistment remained unchanged. However, because of common disagreement to the viewpoint held by William Hughes, he was forced out of the Labour Party where, with the help of the opposition, he formed the Nationalist Party in 1917. However, the British Empire was not satisfied with the result of the referendum and pressured Australian parliament to meet the increase of 1,500 troops per month. Again, in order to find enough men, William Hughes proposed a reformed referendum the the population that stated: “Voluntary enlistments should continue, but any shortfall would be met by compulsory reinforcements of single men, widowers, and divorcees without dependents between 20 and 44 years, who would be called up by ballot.” Again, the referendum was voted against, however, slightly more convincingly this time around. Throughout the course of 1917, in parliament there were two referendums that lead to extensive arguments and a political party to be torn apart.
To restate conclusively, 1917 was evidently the worst year of the war for both the Australian diggers and the Australians that remained on home soil because of these main reasons: there was limited battle progress that came in 1917, there was minimal land captured while it came at a high cost and, finally, the war had both social and political effects on Australians in 1917.