Anzac Day

Post Reply New Topic

This thread is for Australasians to discuss Anzac Day. Does Anzac Day mean anything to you? Did you go / are you planning to go to a service? Should Anzac Day be about Gallipoli, or about war more generally? Was Gallipoli a glorious ill-fated campaign, or an avoidable blunder? Were the Turks "bad guys"? Is Anzac Day inherently Christian and nationalistic? Is Anzac Day or Waitangi Day the "true" national day of New Zealand? Does New Zealand even have a national day? Should it have one?

I went to a morning service at my old school with my dad, like I always do. The service always emphasises the idea that New Zealand's identity as a country distinct from Britain was forged at Gallipoli. The service, as always, was explicitly Christian (even though it is a public school), and the speech made a point of defining New Zealand as a "Christian nation". This didn't ring true for me at all.

But I do like the idea of a day when we remember those who have died for the country.

From what I read they went to the wrong place in Gallipoli when you see the scenery like they showed last night they didn't stand a chance.
I think its good to remember the people who sacrificed their lives to make the world a safer place although sadly its happening again "Because of the terroists"

last Saturday my mum, dad, brother and I went to my aunts nursing home (my aunt is a nun and her convent is Little Sisters of the Poor) to help set up the Anzac day display. Which basically consists of pictures of all the residents and the staff(the convent takes care of the elderly) loved ones that served in the wars and their service records(basically a certificate that details when they enlisted and where they served).
the traditional Essendon vs Collingwood game is today. The pre game ceremony is amazing. Basically the last post is played before the game, infront of 90,000 silent fans.
There is a rugby game happening tonight between the Melbourne Storm and New Zealand Warriors.

I don't celebrate today at all.

To me, AUS is stilling running in circles and very little has changed in that regard, except which countries a** we have chosen to kiss.

We continue to send our young men and women to die in 2 invasions that have nothing to do with us and which only serve those in another country, not to mention they are gross violations of international law. We didn't learn from WW1, WW2, or Vietnam.

Gallipoli was a stupid decision. They invaded another country, screwed up the place they were supposed to land in, got used as cannon fodder by the poms and people want to celebrate how many were killed because we didn't have the guts to say to Britain, "This isn't our fight, do it yourselves"?

They seemed to be (back then), under the impression that if something had gone badly wrong in regards to AUS, that Britain would pull their butts out, which is not true. Britain only would have gotten themselves involved if it was in their best interests. They still seem to be under that impression today regarding the USA, although nothing could be further from the truth.

They need to sort out their national identity properly so they don't feel the need to prove themselves to everyone else, cut the cord from Britain and stop jumping every time the USA looks in their direction.

That is more or less how I feel about Canada. Though Japan did present a credible threat to Australia's future; even had it not been a Dominion. The Japanese had designs on the continent and considered the white race to be temporary interlopers they would replace there

Canada does have a better track record though, as does NZ. You guys have stood up in the past and said "No.", whereas that has never happened here.

Japan did pose a viable threat however, it's about how you deal with it. When the Japanese attacked Darwin, we defended ourselves, as we should have.

Defending yourself once attacked on your own ground is completely different from invading another country because your ally thinks it's a good idea.

We should never be ashamed that we fought in World War 2, in my opinion. World War 2 was as close at it gets to a genuine "goodies vs baddies" confrontation for the fate of the world. I am ambivalent about the atomic bombings, but the majority of World War 2 was a clear case of a war worth fighting. It would have been worth fighting even if the Japanese had never threatened the Pacific.

Out of all of them, I agree that was the one that was the closest to having an actual basis of cause, and therefore the one I object to least, although I still object to it.

I do object strenuously to the use of nuclear weapons though. That was a show of force, nothing else. They were going to surrender anyway. It was completely unnecessary, and a massive loss of civilian lives, they didn't even pick military targets.

Last edited by Kjas on 25 Apr 2012, 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

i dont think we should have fought in ww2 either. it is often portrayed as a just war but i still think it is the same as all the other wars- economically based. i dont think we were there to save jewish people from persecution either and i dont think that is how it would have been portrayed at the time. back then there was a lot of anti semitism in australia and the way jewish refugees were treated in this country(by the government) exemplifies that. they were treated much like refugees today. the troops we sent weren't there to save other groups persecuted by the nazis- queers, opposing political groups, the disabled, black people etc the government has a heinous record on all fronts. plus the way germans in australia got treated during the war was despicable. there was also opposition to the war by people in this country back then too we just never have that taught to us at school. the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima im sure i do not have to argue against.
im against anzac day too. its a holiday that the state uses to back up its nationalist agenda and promote militarism. the anzacs themselves didnt want this holiday. the first march was in 1916 to stem the disontent with conscription and divert soldiers anger at the war from those who had sent them to the anti-conscriptionists. it was designed to cause a split in the working class. i dont think the ruling class felt too at ease with the return of soldiers that had taken part in the revolts in europe at the time either so they had to push nationalism and militarism to get people to step in line behind their warmongering policies. anzac day has been really unpopular in history and has been associated with warmongerers and it was only revived under the hawke government in the 1980s when people started going to gallipoli, that place we invaded, as a state run tradition.
the whole holiday is about glorifying war, encouraging militarism and nationalism (and all the things that go with it like racism and divisions in the working class). thats what it means to me. thats why i oppose it.

Britain and France were involved in the fighting at the Battle of Çanakkale. The invasion forces were made up of units from the UK,
Australia, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand, France, and French West Africa.

The campaign started on the 25 April 1915 with the Ari Burnu landing by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Its understand why Anzac Day came about. Can I point out of this fact out of the invasion forces involved in the Battle of Çanakkale it was the British that suffered the most casualties.

http://www.dva.gov.au/news_archive/Docu ... mpaign.pdf

Did you even read what Declension wrote? He did not say he thinks Australia should not have been part of the Second World War. Furthermore I suggest you learn more about it, it was not just another police action ffs Australia was attacked by air and sea. I weep for our future if many young people think this of the war

I never stated more brits weren't killed. They were. Not to mention, they were one of the major players in the war, so it makes sense that they are naturally more involved and in higher numbers.

I stated that the aussies were used purposely as cannon fodder at Gallipoli - and that is true, you can look it up.

My point from the entire post was that AUS still needs to grow a backbone.

No in your last post you blamed Britain for Gallipoli. I know what happened in the campaign thanks.

It was the French (French minister Aristide Briand) who put forward the idea of attacking Ottomans in order to get Bulgaria and Greece into the war on there side, to take pressure off the Western Front & to set up a supply line for the Russians on the Eastern Front. Plus add to that, the fact that the Ottoman Empire were bribed by Germany to join the Central Powers after the Ottomans rejected Britain's bribe.

It was Winston Churchill who proposed the Dardanelles invasion. Churchill had to win over the Admiralty, has the First Sea Lord at the time, John Fisher proposed a coastal invasion of North Germany.

I never hear an aussie blame France and Germany of Gallipoli!

I'm worried that this might be true, or that it might become true if we are not careful. But there is a way to remember without rewriting. At every Anzac service I've ever been to, people always say something like "we are not here to glorify war, but to remember the sacrifice of those who died in war". Anzac Day is also associated with war veterans, and veterans are not the sort of people who would want to glorify war.

Please learn to read what is IN the post and not what you THINK is in the post. Thanks. I won't be responding to you anymore since you cannot comprehend what I say.

I am not responsible for the incorrect assumptions you make.

i think this is already true. appart from its history backing up nationalism and militarism so that soldiers could be convinced that the wars they fought in were good and so that the working class could be convinced that they should fight there is the stuff that people say at anzac day. its true that people do state it is not to glorify the war(that doesnt change its nature or history) but then its often followed up with stuff like this:
john howards 2003 anzac day speech:

(that last bit after the ellipsis is on the iraq war)
or kevin rudd:

that was on gallipoli.

i also think that the state glorifies war by not letting us see the full reality of it. the badly wounded are kept out of sight. those with ptsd are neglected. they wont be paraded. in a general sense im thinking like they were treated after the falkland islands war and vietnam.
as for the vetrans- they might not neccessarily glorify war(not saying they dont) but nationalism does funny things to people. the whole purpose of the government encouraging it is to make soldiers and the populace see it as a civic duty, benifiting society, a noble sacrifice and something that is an act of alturism. that being said there are many examples of soldiers themselves standing against war and anzac day itself. my comrade actually gave a talk on this a week or so ago(she spent ages researching it) and she told us so many stories of soldiers expressing dissent and our older comrades(they were around and politically active decades ago. old as) also had their own stories to relate. wish she were here so i could ask her about it but she has a caah meeting tonight.

vigilans: i was agreeing with kjas. i read declensions post. were we attacked before of after we involved ourselves in war? how much more would we have been attacked if we just pulled out? since when does a state act out of alturism? if they did i can think of a thousand things for them to fix but theyd probably try liberating people with bullets and bombs so i'll stick to my anti-imperialist stance and anti-war protests.