The ANZAC Legend and it's place in Australian Society (2 Viewers)

[Kiraken]

tl;dr version of what i'm saying

ANZAC day should be a time when we step back and reflect on the realities of war, including the fact that Australian participation in war was neither always perfect or commendable, that fighting in a war is neither innately glorious or heroic, that war is horrifying and destructive and costs us so much. It should be a time when we reflect on the atrocity of war rather than putting everything the military was involved in on a pedestal above any critique, including the soldiers that fought in the wars.

 

[tigerian]

April 25, 1915 a day of great sadness and one filled with awe.

As so many great ANZACS arrived on a Gallipoli shore.

I cant even imagine what occurred that grey, sombre morn,

But so much courage shown and Aussie mateship was born.


Respect does not seem enough as we can only picture the scene,

Of bullets and bodies engulfing what was once a beach serene.

Stand tall all Australians give these heroes such adulation ;

And don’t forget to continually give them much adulation


To say “Thank You!” to these brave men just doesnt seem enough,

To think that nothing we’ve had could anywhere near as tough.

Sing “Advance Australia Fair” proudly in remembering their debt,

And stand united in pride and utter “ Lest We Forget”

 

[isildurrrr1]

tl;dr version of what i'm saying

ANZAC day should be a time when we step back and reflect on the realities of war, including the fact that Australian participation in war was neither always perfect or commendable, that fighting in a war is neither innately glorious or heroic, that war is horrifying and destructive and costs us so much. It should be a time when we reflect on the atrocity of war rather than putting everything the military was involved in on a pedestal above any critique, including the soldiers that fought in the wars.

We participated because we were doing it for King and Empire. Enlistment oaths in the ADF is to QEII and her heirs, not to Australia. Australia lost A LOT of people in WW1, around 1/8th of our population in total. WW1 was a fucking terrible war if you know your history. Battle of the Somme and western front was atrocious.

They also had a lot of ill advised policies in recruiting back then, getting boys to sign up together and stick them in the same unit. Until 15 of them serve together then all get schwacked by artillery and 15 mother's in the same street get letters.

Kiraken:

Go learn your history. WW1 was the worst warfare in human history for a reason. The technology advanced much faster than the strategy and the consequences were dire. It was the first time in history where veterans did not glorify what happened, hemingway wrote an excellent book called 'a farewell to arms' you should read it.

Soldiers back then didn't know the horrors that were to come. You thought people knew the horrors of the trenches? Yeah what a great recruiting tool, 'hey there champ, sign up for war get stuck in a trench for 6 months, maybe get gassed and artilleried it'll be great!'

World war 1 did unite Australia into a common identity. We forged amongst ourselves as 'australians' not victorians or queenslanders or new south welsh. It was the first major war since federation and it forged a common identity whether you like it or not.

Gallipoli was a fuck up from the get go. It was terribly improvised at best and people died because some General didn't want to look bad amongst other officers. Aussies did fight extremely well despite the odds, that's why we talk about Gallipoli.

 

[isildurrrr1]

top kek that kiraken keeps talking about turkey (ahem the ottomans).

Did you also forget ANZACs also participated in other battles in ww1? we had soldiers that fought on the western front were 60,000 people would die in ONE DAY. Imagine an area that was forrested that was shelled to shit in one day. Saw dust replaced dirt. Then you got gas attacks. Then rain comes forming poisonous puddles. Then you're getting shot by ze germans, then you're getting hit with arty again spewing up all that left over chlorine puddle over your face. Yeah sounds like a war everyone expected to go that way.

World War 1 happened because of fate and destiny. Read up how the archduke died and the man who shot him. That's some fucking divine intervention to get him shot.

 

[Kiraken]

We participated because we were doing it for King and Empire. Enlistment oaths in the ADF is to QEII and her heirs, not to Australia. Australia lost A LOT of people in WW1, around 1/8th of our population in total. WW1 was a fucking terrible war if you know your history. Battle of the Somme and western front was atrocious.

They also had a lot of ill advised policies in recruiting back then, getting boys to sign up together and stick them in the same unit. Until 15 of them serve together then all get schwacked by artillery and 15 mother's in the same street get letters.

Kiraken:

Go learn your history. WW1 was the worst warfare in human history for a reason. The technology advanced much faster than the strategy and the consequences were dire. It was the first time in history where veterans did not glorify what happened, hemingway wrote an excellent book called 'a farewell to arms' you should read it.

Soldiers back then didn't know the horrors that were to come. You thought people knew the horrors of the trenches? Yeah what a great recruiting tool, 'hey there champ, sign up for war get stuck in a trench for 6 months, maybe get gassed and artilleried it'll be great!'

World war 1 did unite Australia into a common identity. We forged amongst ourselves as 'australians' not victorians or queenslanders or new south welsh. It was the first major war since federation and it forged a common identity whether you like it or not.

Gallipoli was a fuck up from the get go. It was terribly improvised at best and people died because some General didn't want to look bad amongst other officers. Aussies did fight extremely well despite the odds, that's why we talk about Gallipoli.

your first two paragraphs are exactly in line with what i have been saying all along lol

i agree that veterans didn't glorify what happened, in fact that is exactly my point that veterans HATED the glorification of war, whereas future generations and political figures have glorified it. I have also read "A Farewell to Arms" and think it's fantastic precisely due to the anti-war sentiment it espouses and how it conveys the sheer horror of war without the romantic idealism that so permeates much of the ANZAC legend we see in the media today.

Also, how exactly did it forge a common identity in any way that other historical events in Australia's history didn't? It's all well and good to say it was the first major war since federation, but what does that say about identity? Didn't our federation itself forge the Australian identity? Not to mention the war itself, and the way Australia essentially lent itself to Britain shows a compromise in our national identity rather than forging our own Australian identity separate from our British heritage

Yes Australians fought extremely well in Gallipoli, but they fought extremely well in other places that get a fraction of the attention. The only reason Gallipoli in particular gets attention is because Charles Bean's war correspondence creating the Anzac legend came from Gallipoli, correspondence that was censored from saying anything critical of the situation and censored from saying anything that might convey the horrors of war too emotionally (which he admitted in his diary), which whilst good for morale and families at home, was hardly indicative of the exact truth of what was occurring there

 

[Kiraken]

top kek that kiraken keeps talking about turkey (ahem the ottomans).

Did you also forget ANZACs also participated in other battles in ww1? we had soldiers that fought on the western front were 60,000 people would die in ONE DAY. Imagine an area that was forrested that was shelled to shit in one day. Saw dust replaced dirt. Then you got gas attacks. Then rain comes forming poisonous puddles. Then you're getting shot by ze germans, then you're getting hit with arty again spewing up all that left over chlorine puddle over your face. Yeah sounds like a war everyone expected to go that way.

World War 1 happened because of fate and destiny. Read up how the archduke died and the man who shot him. That's some fucking divine intervention to get him shot.

did you forget to read the first post where i say that other battles of ww1 deserve more attention? lol

 

[Kiraken]

top kek that kiraken keeps talking about turkey (ahem the ottomans).

Did you also forget ANZACs also participated in other battles in ww1? we had soldiers that fought on the western front were 60,000 people would die in ONE DAY. Imagine an area that was forrested that was shelled to shit in one day. Saw dust replaced dirt. Then you got gas attacks. Then rain comes forming poisonous puddles. Then you're getting shot by ze germans, then you're getting hit with arty again spewing up all that left over chlorine puddle over your face. Yeah sounds like a war everyone expected to go that way.

World War 1 happened because of fate and destiny. Read up how the archduke died and the man who shot him. That's some fucking divine intervention to get him shot.

it also happened cos politicians were fucking stupid too and in the end a lot of factors involving ineptitude, self-interest and a refusal to let go of colonial interests came together to cause what was ultimately one of the most unnecessary wars in history

 

[D94]

Except applying more progressive and reasonable ideologies is exactly what leads to the evolution of society, just because they had a dated ideology, it doesn't mean it is not open to scrutiny and in any way justified. History isn't about accepting how it was done back in the day, but seeing what went wrong and learning from it.

Not to mention that this neglects the fact that many Australians didn't in fact feel that way and Australia actually had widespread opposition to the war. The enormous support for it was simply in the initial few months, then it all went downhill from there as people realised how idiotic it was.

Australia forged it's identity at federation and going to fight Britain's wars was simply a step backward that shone light on how we weren't truly our own nation yet

This wasn't Britain's war. Again, Britain wanted nothing to do with what they initially considered a local war. Belgium needed protecting because a nation of their size would have been stomped on by Germany, so Britain gave their word to protect Belgium (and this was in 1839, not at the start of the 20th century). This was mainly a deterrent, but Belgium's invasion forced Britain into WW1.

Alliances were primarily a deterrent. The more support a nation or alliance can get, the stronger it can appear to be in the face of potential war. Australia, being a young nation, was still part of the British Empire - everyone seems to forget that. Sure we had a Federation, but we depended on Britain until 1942, and even up to 1986 when we got rid of the Privy Council as the highest judicial system in Australia. Of course we weren't our own nation - Scullin to Fadden even recognised that, given that the Statute of Westminster was passed way back in 1931.

This was not a dated ideology. This was the ideology of the time. You can't suggest today's capitalist society could be equally applied to the early 20th century. History is about accepting what and how it was done in the day - to suggest otherwise is stupendously irresponsible. We need to accept it in order to accept responsibility. But at the same time, of course we learn from it. You can have both.

Australia's support was with the premise that soldiers would be back by Christmas. By Christmas 1914, more than 1% of the population volunteered. To put that into perspective, that's the same number of volunteers as the number of active personnel in today's ADF - but we have quadrupled our population. People wanted to go to war because of a genuine patriotic sentiment and given that 80% of the population had a direct tie to Britain, again, why wouldn't you defend your own mother if she was attacked?

There was no widespread opposition to war. In fact, the first 3 years had seen a 6-fold increase in the total number of volunteers. Yes, after that, there was a realisation that going to war meant you had a significantly greater chance of dying than surviving, but people still volunteered. Stop suggesting a widespread opposition. The 2 plebiscites yielded 51 and 53% opposition to conscription. Note that the 1917 plebiscite asked: "Are you in favour of the proposal of the Commonwealth Government for reinforcing the Australian Imperial Force overseas?" - that is a direct question to the support of war from Australia. That's not widespread, but sure people were hesitant to volunteer.

Going to war was justified. This is really the point at which this debate is at a standstill. Just because Australia wasn't directly attacked and that we're thousands of kilometres from Europe, is not a valid reason. In fact, this global struggle led to the concept of international peace, that all countries are responsible for maintaining international peace and security. If countries stayed in their borders, alliances such as NATO, African Union, Arab League, ANZUS etc. would not happen. These alliances are important because they maintain security against modern day threats (such as modern terrorism, piracy etc.) And as you said, this is how we learned from our past, and I would very much rather live in today's society than that of the early 20th century.

 

[Schmeag]

I suspect now that everyone has clarified their viewpoints, the differences lie in semantics and small variations in opinion.
There is nothing I strongly disagree with.

History is about accepting what and how it was done in the day - to suggest otherwise is stupendously irresponsible. We need to accept it in order to accept responsibility. But at the same time, of course we learn from it. You can have both.

Going to war was justified.

You can't speak of justification with the upbringing that you guys have had.

I feel the first statement rings more than the others. I don't think anyone is denying history and the culture of the era per se. However I feel that arguing that a certain war is justified is a significantly different statement and is not the point of this debate at all. I am not going to discuss what a 'just' war is. What I will say is that historians apply their own views to history, as do we all.

My opinion is that while we should accept and appreciate values of the time, that doesn't mean we should adopt a completely morally relativistic approach, ie we do not need to justify every social norm (genital mutilation) in every era (Dark Ages) under every regime (Nazi) simply because that was the way things were.

 

[Kiraken]

This wasn't Britain's war. Again, Britain wanted nothing to do with what they initially considered a local war. Belgium needed protecting because a nation of their size would have been stomped on by Germany, so Britain gave their word to protect Belgium (and this was in 1839, not at the start of the 20th century). This was mainly a deterrent, but Belgium's invasion forced Britain into WW1.

Alliances were primarily a deterrent. The more support a nation or alliance can get, the stronger it can appear to be in the face of potential war. Australia, being a young nation, was still part of the British Empire - everyone seems to forget that. Sure we had a Federation, but we depended on Britain until 1942, and even up to 1986 when we got rid of the Privy Council as the highest judicial system in Australia. Of course we weren't our own nation - Scullin to Fadden even recognised that, given that the Statute of Westminster was passed way back in 1931.

This was not a dated ideology. This was the ideology of the time. You can't suggest today's capitalist society could be equally applied to the early 20th century. History is about accepting what and how it was done in the day - to suggest otherwise is stupendously irresponsible. We need to accept it in order to accept responsibility. But at the same time, of course we learn from it. You can have both.

Australia's support was with the premise that soldiers would be back by Christmas. By Christmas 1914, more than 1% of the population volunteered. To put that into perspective, that's the same number of volunteers as the number of active personnel in today's ADF - but we have quadrupled our population. People wanted to go to war because of a genuine patriotic sentiment and given that 80% of the population had a direct tie to Britain, again, why wouldn't you defend your own mother if she was attacked?

There was no widespread opposition to war. In fact, the first 3 years had seen a 6-fold increase in the total number of volunteers. Yes, after that, there was a realisation that going to war meant you had a significantly greater chance of dying than surviving, but people still volunteered. Stop suggesting a widespread opposition. The 2 plebiscites yielded 51 and 53% opposition to conscription. Note that the 1917 plebiscite asked: "Are you in favour of the proposal of the Commonwealth Government for reinforcing the Australian Imperial Force overseas?" - that is a direct question to the support of war from Australia. That's not widespread, but sure people were hesitant to volunteer.

Going to war was justified. This is really the point at which this debate is at a standstill. Just because Australia wasn't directly attacked and that we're thousands of kilometres from Europe, is not a valid reason. In fact, this global struggle led to the concept of international peace, that all countries are responsible for maintaining international peace and security. If countries stayed in their borders, alliances such as NATO, African Union, Arab League, ANZUS etc. would not happen. These alliances are important because they maintain security against modern day threats (such as modern terrorism, piracy etc.) And as you said, this is how we learned from our past, and I would very much rather live in today's society than that of the early 20th century.

Except the reason Germany even went through Belgium was to get to France, and they wouldn't have targetted France if France was not in an alliance with Russia and threatened to mobilise because of that. In that sense, the formation of the Triple Entente years earlier simply served to fuel what was supposed to be a local war, into a much larger one. Britain joining in the Triple Entente served to inflame that.

Your second paragraph is all the more evidence to suggest that the war itself did not help Australia forge it's own independent identity lol. In addition, the whole defending the motherland concept was nothing short of propaganda, simply because you have your heritage in a specific country, it by no means justifies you going to involve yourself in it's wars while you reside and establish life in another country. It speaks volumes of our lack of true national identity at the time that patriotism was about fighting for Britain more than for Australia itself.

As for the widespread opposition a) more than 50% by your own statistics is widespread opposition and b) the voting excluded populations at the time that were also likely predominantly anti-war. Sounds like widespread opposition to me. Furthermore, an increase in volunteers may only be occuring from a certain subset of the population and is not necessarily representative of the support of the population as a whole.

And no, to say ww1 and it's alliances helped forge peace is ridiculous and just plain wrong. The alliances prior to the war served to inflame the situation and expand it from a local war and even after the war left a brutal aftermath where political machinations served as a catalyst to the rise of Nazism and world war 2. World war 1 was a total and utter disaster that was a complete waste of millions of lives and practically nothing good came out of it, especially for Australia who gained nothing for sacrificing a sizeable proportion of it's male population at the time, the alliance was not fruitful in any way.

 

[teridax]

dem essay responses tho

 

[Jippyjitsu1]

The thing i disagree with in regards to your argument is the statement that you use "They did more for the British than Australia itself...". This is untrue in my view as i feel that you are completely disregarding the fact that in 1914 the ties in Australian families with Britain were a lot stronger, which would have compelled many men to join. Not only this but in WW1 joining the Army for Australian men was a chance to go an see the world, it was a lifetime opportunity, and you have to include the fact that along with all the excitement about war, it was believed to have been over by Christmas, so men didn't want to miss out. Also the strategy behind Gallipoli may have been flawed, but the fact was that the British were actually compelled to fight there in order to get supplies to Russian forces through the Bosphorus strait, as the Russian Army was failing. Gallipoli is an important place for Australians as it was the first time that Australian troops were actually used in a War and a lot of lore about mateship and respect morals that we as Australians have today, actually originated from Gallipoli. Gallipoli wasn't even a complete strategic failure as you suggest it is, as some strategy worked and also it refined and created new tactics for use on the Western Front. The retreat in December was a strategic success as no troops were lost in a retreat from an enemy less than 50 yards from them. You also point out that fact that Gallipoli was an "Invasion of another country which Australians wouldn't have cared about otherwise..." this is untrue as the Turkish people were actually allies of the Central powers, making them an enemy to the allied forces. You must also remember that whole point of the Western Front in the first place as it was a result of the failure of the Schleiffen Plan, which invaded Belgium (a neutral nation) and France. The whole reason for the Western Front in the first place is the result of an invasion. The turks also were at war with Russia and were fighting Russia where the turkish border meets Russian territory, and as Russia was our ally we were compelled to help them. Gallipoli was also a success because it diverted Turkish attention away from the front lines, which allowed many Russian breakthroughs, gaining territory and allowing Russian Forces to gain the Upper hand. This is my argument to you sir, on where i disagree with you.

Yours much annoyed

Jippy

 

[dan964]

Not to mention that this neglects the fact that many Australians didn't in fact feel that way and Australia actually had widespread opposition to the war. The enormous support for it was simply in the initial few months, then it all went downhill from there as people realised how idiotic it was.

Australia forged it's identity at federation and going to fight Britain's wars was simply a step backward that shone light on how we weren't truly our own nation yet

We aren't a republic; but still part of the Commonwealth even as an independent nation. Although it is harder to tell today; the Queen is technically the head of state, and we (up to recently) had strong ties with Britain. (British migrants/residents still are the largest group of people entering Australia: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0/). So I hardly think it is step backward, to join Britain in war.

D94's response I resonate with very strongly.

I also found this online that sums it up: "Although the theatres of war were very distant from Australia, its membership of the British Empire ensured that there was strong (although not universal) public support for involvement in the war."

Except applying more progressive and reasonable ideologies is exactly what leads to the evolution of society[/B], just because they had a dated ideology, it doesn't mean it is not open to scrutiny and in any way justified. History isn't about accepting how it was done back in the day, but seeing what went wrong and learning from it.

Sorry, but, I get the impression of arrogance. I would disagree that progressivism leads to a better society, you only have to look at stories such as the one posted by nerdasdasd in the "social justice warrior thread"; to see that "progressivism/liberalism" has an ugly intolerant streak that seems to be showing up; especially towards traditions; structures of society, authority etc. Society has indeed evolved; and I would say most of what has changed is for good, some of it isn't. But it is highly inaccurate to portray everything about the past as "unreasonable"

2. The word "reasonable" is also highly subjective; so your claim becomes dubious. In context, everyone will always view what they are doing as reasonable. Serving the country overseas in war is reasonable; yes, Gallipoli may not have been justified or was a complete failure. Yes, people may have found as unreasonable. But people did find it reasonable, which is why the "legend" exists today.

I would agree that we have progressed in the sense we are able to reflect upon the past events and the positives/negatives and be able to make adjustments. But society today still has its issues. Today, we still have allegiences, for instance not specifically to Britain as it was say 100 years ago; but now to NATO (especially USA because of ANZUS)

But, we still have alliances and ties to other nations today. It is why we are fighting for instance in Iraq; because of our ties to NATO/USA.


======
The reason why Gallipoli was significant because it was the first significant war for Australia as a nation (albeit not completely independent) to fight in. There was a sense of heroicism (courage) involving with serving the country; and in the end they were servants of this country. Yes it may have been a silly reason to fight; or a war not worth fighting; but Australia had its reasons for sending troops over.

Hey did more for the British than Australia itself, if we are talking world war 1. The only reason Australia even participated was because Britain essentially compelled us to and at that time most of the population had direct ties to a British heritage.

That is only part of the reason, not to mention the strong ties we had (or still have to a lesser extent today) with Britain. Secondly, how was World War 2 any different, for the most part; Australia was still defending British or at the very least Commonwealth interests. Same applies for today; except it more so for other interests of the UN/NATO, other groups like that; peace etc.

I dislike some aspects of what people have made Anzac Day. I personally think Gallipoli was a total and utter disaster caused by inept leadership and the ANZACs essentially invaded another country that otherwise would not have cared for them if we had not participated in the war (and even with our participation, was unlikely to directly attack Australia). It was not a fight for our freedoms and values at all, if anything you can argue that the Turkish people were fighting to defend themselves and their values from us.

We would have cared, because of our strong ties to Britain which were not only population statistics. You could argue that; but at the same time, the context/reasoning behind Gallipoli was
"for the British to be able to capture the Ottoman Empire Capital and also they wanted to secure their trading route with Russia. Then with the secure trading route with Russia, British forces would be able to supply Russia with ammunition, resources and reinforcements. This then would hopefully win the war for the allied nations and stop the German and Austria-Hungary forces on the Western front."

Yes it was a failed campaign; yes, there are other WW1 campaigns. But it did indeed play a significant role, being the first war Australian being part of; where Australian soldiers fought and died for our country. That is where the heroicism comes from.

However at the same time I feel as if ANZAC day is a great day precisely because of that, because it's a day to reflect on the absolute horrors of war and how awful it can be for a population. What I am against is glorifying war as some sort of noble and justified cause when it rarely ever is and has certainly not been the case for the majority of Australian military intervention.

War, yes, should not be glorified. But in some cases, it is unavoidable; or a present reality; particularly because of the duty/obligation Australia has; does this justify war as good? No. But does it justify why Australia gets involved? Yes.