Dear editor, I wish to withdraw a review mistakenly sent for this book an hour ago. Regards, L. A.

Not once in the review is New Zealand mentioned. Has someone forgotten what the NZ in ANZAC stands for? Or is this part of the Australian illusion?

The Anzac Illusion represents another addition by E.M. Andrewsto his body of work on Australian foreign relations in the twentiethcentury. This book joins Isolation and Appeasement in Australia: Reactions to the European Crisis 1935-1939, Australia and China: The Ambiguous Relationship, and The Writing on the Wall: British Commonwealth and Aggression in the Far East 1931-1935 as examples of his contributions on the subject. He teaches history at the University of Newcastle in Australia and received grants by the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Research Council to work on this book. Andrews consulted over 700 books, articles, and other words in preparation for The Anzac Illusion. The secondary materials mostly covered either the British or the Australians; the few that did, as Andrews, examine the relationship between the two countries were either journal articles or unpublished theses or dissertations. One also sees that he consulted the papers belonging to most of the key figures mentioned in the book as well as a considerable number of minor players. He has written the book to try to correct what he perceives as biases that occur not only in most histories of World War I but especially in Australian versions of the war. Andrews believes that errors have occured in many of the books written on the period and feels these mistakes stem from several sources. He claims that many times authors base their conclusions on second hand stories or propaganda that do not hold up under scrutiny. Also many works suffer in that they focus too narrowly on one event and also study certain parts of the war without looking at other aspects. In The Anzac Illusion, Andrews studies a narrow issue, the British-Australian relationship, in a broad context that allows him to develop his main idea. The Anzac participation in the Great War benefitted from a great deal of propaganda which resulted in an almost mythological exaggeration of Australian fighting ability. In the book, Andrews debunks those myths and attempts to place Australia's efforts in its proper social, economic, political, and military perspectives. The book begins by describing the relationship between Britain and Australia before the war. Some already posed questions about the nature of the Imperial relationship. Andrews presents the local politicians who have begun to develop concerns separate from Britain, especially on security issues, as a contrast to the new governor-general Munro Ferguson who sought a return to the old style relationship between London and the colony. The first decade of the century showed the widening gulf of opinion as Britain concluded an alliance with Australia's main perceived threat, Japan, then proceeded to pull back the Royal Navy to protect the home islands from the German Empire. However, when war broke out, Australians did volunteer in force to fight an enemy several thousand miles away. The mythmaking begins at Gallipoli when reports filter in about Australian fighting prowess. Andrews goes into detail about the Anzec myth throughout the book, illustrating how it started and spread as well as the reasons why. At the same time, he also tries to give credit where credit is due when the Australians do well, but also put the contributions of the other BEF armies in their proper perspectives as well. He cites the need to bolster relations with Australia and also such words as The Anzac Book that portrayed Australian soldiers as happy and brave, rarely scared or dead. Andrews wrote how the mythmaking irritated others and also gave Australians an inflated sense of their accomplishment, which they sometimes used against their English comrades-in-arms. The author envelops the story of the myth in the context of the British-Australian dichotomy. Each had certain needs that needed met that often went wanting in this period. The war disrupted the prewar economic relations between the two countries. It also awakened the Australians to the question of just how British they really were. It highlighted the differences between the militaries which led to tension. In general the Australians enjoyed more lax discipline, higher pay, and the lack of capital punishment. The war also gave Prime Minister W.M. "Billy" Hughes a chance to forge more freedom of action and develop a voice in imperial affairs although he did not always avail himself of every opportunity. Andrews packs as much information into 274 pages as many historians could not compress into 400. The anecdotes and information come with force, rapidity, apparent accuracy, and excellent readability. The book also paints good pictures of every subject it covers. It portrays the Australian soldiers without trying to burrow inside their heads with too much psychology, giving one an accurate idea about the Anzacs without going too far past what the facts can support. Andrews' conclusions that the Australian soldiers did not match their lofty reputation agrees with historical accounts of other soldiers as well as common sense. The myth that Australians faced the ordeals of the Western Front with a great deal more courage, skill, and fortitude than others served to bolster Australian pride when necessary, but in the long run does not treat fairly the other Allies or the Australian soldiers themselves. That Australians developed a national sense when comparing militaries, societies, and security concerns during this time of overwhelming crisis also seems reasonable. Andrews may be on his most tenuous ground when speculating that the deafness of Hughes played a key role in his sometimes acrimonious relations with others. The Anzac Illusion covers a different patch of ground than most World War I histories. One generally gets the impression of the British Empire as a single voice and a homogenous unit but this book shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that was not so. This concept of strain between Britain and the Dominions does not receive nearly enough mention and can educate the scholar while appealing to the general reader because of the quality and liveliness of the writing. English who liked to believe in the uniformity of Empire may feel distaste, but it actually is a tribute to a government when can keep several nations on separate continents more or less aligned on the same policy through periods of extreme stress and strain. (...) END