riksavage....
Your question is a little difficult to answer, at least in the way that you phrase it. How can we reply with "fact" when the men involved are almost all dead, their motivation can only be inferred, and any such assesment must be qualitative, rather than quantitative.
The best "facts" that we can give you are at best oblique.
To first clarify.
Some *say* that the average ANZAC (I know, familiar misuse of a specific WW1 acronym) were amongst the best , if not the best, of the allied troops in two world wars on the basis of performance, and the assesment of both commanders and their enemy.
In WW1
On the Western Front, they were the most consistently reliable troops (by nationality, other individual unoits were as good). Per capita, they captured a disproportionately large percentage of both enemy territory and personnel. They were involved in a number of key actions that had the potential to alter the balance of the front decidedly in the enemy's favour, and performed above expectation. They developed the tactics that broke the stalemate of trench warfare and lead to the eventual German surrender. They were also the only national group which were automatically labelled as "shock troops" by the German staff whenever they were identified in the front lines. Incidentally, the Australian tropops did not consider themselves better than the rest. They thought very highly of both Scots and Canadians (and thought that the Yanks didn't do too badly once they learnt how to fight.
).
In Palestine, Allenby is held to have stated that his campaign - which is held to be the precursor to "Blitzkreig" tactics, would have been impossible without his Australian and New Zealand mounted troops.
In WW2, the predominantly Australian garrison of Tobruk were the first western troops to demonstrate that both Blitzkreig tactics and Rommel's generalship could be defeated. In Syria, they defeated the French Foreign Legion and they were also the first western troops to defeat the Japanese on land in the Pacific theatre.
As to why their record was so good........ The following may help explain.
(1) Unit cohesion. While there are exceptions, the records of the times show an exceptional degree of commitment to their fellow diggers. A very high proprotion of them considered that to permit their mates to go into battle without being there personally to support them was an act of betrayal. To hold back meant that someone else had to take a greater risk. To leave your wounded behind was almost as bad.
(2) An emphasis on personal initiative, intelligence and the delegation of decision-making as far down the chain of command as was reasonably possible.. Monash wrote pithily on the supposed ill-discipline of Australian troops, noting that their discipline was not of the mindless kind, but that of the team player who puts the combined effort before his personal freedom. When bored or considering themselves disregarded, they had tendency to play up. But the same troops who displayed a willingness to toss Cairo into the Nile, conducted themselves brilliantly when taken to France. They were "interested".
(3) Attitude. While not considering themselves "the best", many of them held the attitude that anyone who wanted to prove themselves better would have to work very hard to do so. The belief that the war could not be won without fighting, so they may as well get started. Being taken lightly, annoyed them.
..... It would be foolish of me to say that any of these attributes were (or are) unique to "Azacs". Of course they are not.
There are other units that are just as willing to fight. (The Gurkhas are an obvious example). Similarly there are other units with high levels of self-belief, or unit cohesion.
What seems less common is to have these things in combination, and to the same degree.
I'll also agree that we've been lucky in at least some of our leaders, including some non-Australians. Monash. Allenby. Morshead. Montgomery.
About all that I can come up with at the moment...
Peter
