Today April 25 is ANZAC day in New Zealand and Australia. In 1915 men of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corp (ANZAC) hit the beaches at Galipoli to try and knock Turkey out of the war. Anyway it didn't work and it was a bit of a disaster.

Its 6 am over here. I'm off to the dawn parade a ceremony to remember them so I'll finish up later.

Lest We Forget.

Lest We Forget

Just got back from the Sydney marches. It's really sad to see the ranks thining out more and more each year. Even the Vietnam vets are starting to thin out.

Lest we forget.

Originally posted by MattE
Just got back from the Sydney marches. It's really sad to see the ranks thining out more and more each year. Even the Vietnam vets are starting to thin out.

Lest we forget.

It is sad. I don't think we have any WW1 veterans left. The ceremony had the local mayor, member of parliment and a general. Australia and England sent military representitives as well.

IIRC there are only a couple of Australian WWI vets left. I hope that the young people will start marching in their grandparents and so forth place more.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
IIRC there are only a couple of Australian WWI vets left. I hope that the young people will start marching in their grandparents and so forth place more.

Why? I was at the Sydney march yesterday and was disgusted by a small group of people at the end of the march who were marching under the banner of 'decendants of WW1 Veterans'.

Speaking as a decendant of a WW1 veteran myself (not that this is a particularly uncommon distinction - I suspect that 3/4 of the population are decended from a WW1 vet), those people had absolutely no right to take part in a march commemorating the war service of real veterans.

To make matters worse, the smug idiots place in the march was right behind veterans of the South Vietnamese Army, who were as proud and distinguised a group of veterans as I've ever seen.

Personally, I see smaller number of people marching as a good thing - it means that we've engaged in less wars.

Case: I see your point, but in a few years time, there will be very few marching as all the World War I and a lot of the World War II vets would have already passed on.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Case: I see your point, but in a few years time, there will be very few marching as all the World War I and a lot of the World War II vets would have already passed on.

I have to say I agree with Case here, non-veterans should not be marching. In time the numbers will diminish (hopefuly) but you don't need a march to have ANZAC Day.

Don't need a march for ANZAC day! I'm shocked! It's tradition started by the WW1 vets themselves and should always take place. I personally believe it should be our national day. I think it's great that the younger relatives of those who have passed or cannot make it march. If the younger people don't march eventually there will be no marching at all and the memory of those fallen will be lost forever. My grandfather marches every year and every year I fear that it will be his last. He's not the man he used to be and every year the march gets harder and harder. When the time does come when he can no longer march I hope he would want me to take his place and keep the ANZAC spirit alive.

I really am shocked at what some of you have said...

A Tribute to ANZAC Day

With their hair a little whiter, their step not quite so sure
Still they march on proudly as they did the year before.
Theirs were the hands that saved us, their courage showed the way
Their lives they laid down for us, that we may live today.

From Gallipoli's rugged hillsides, to the sands of Alamein
On rolling seas and in the skies, those memories will remain.
Of airmen and the sailors, of Lone Pine and Suvla Bay
The boys of the Dardenelles are remembered on this day.

They fought their way through jungles, their blood soaked desert sands
They still remember comrades who rest in foreign lands.
They remember the siege of old Tobruk, the mud of the Kokoda Trail
Some paying the supreme sacrifice with courage that did not fail.
To the icy land of Korea, the steamy jungles of Vietnam
And the heroic battle of Kapyong and that epic victory at Long Tan.

Fathers, sons and brothers, together they fought and died
That we may live in peace together, while at home their mothers cried.
When that final bugle calls them to cross that great divide
Those comrades will be waiting when they reach the other side.

Originally posted by Case
Why? I was at the Sydney march yesterday and was disgusted by a small group of people at the end of the march who were marching under the banner of 'decendants of WW1 Veterans'.

Speaking as a decendant of a WW1 veteran myself (not that this is a particularly uncommon distinction - I suspect that 3/4 of the population are decended from a WW1 vet), those people had absolutely no right to take part in a march commemorating the war service of real veterans.

To make matters worse, the smug idiots place in the march was right behind veterans of the South Vietnamese Army, who were as proud and distinguised a group of veterans as I've ever seen.

Personally, I see smaller number of people marching as a good thing - it means that we've engaged in less wars.
The whole point of ANZAC day is to remember what our elders did for us. The descendants of the WWI diggers are doing exactly that, remembering. I reckon those descendants did their country proud, by not forgetting what their parents, grandparents or Great Grandparents did for them.

I wore my grandfather's (WWII) medals in the march in Sydney, because people shouldn't forget what he did, even if he is no longer alive.

A smaller number of people marching would just be a sign that we dont really care about the people who are missing, those who, even though they died a generation ago, still did something incredible.

Originally posted by MattE
Don't need a march for ANZAC day! I'm shocked! It's tradition started by the WW1 vets themselves and should always take place. I personally believe it should be our national day. I think it's great that the younger relatives of those who have passed or cannot make it march. If the younger people don't march eventually there will be no marching at all and the memory of those fallen will be lost forever. My grandfather marches every year and every year I fear that it will be his last. He's not the man he used to be and every year the march gets harder and harder. When the time does come when he can no longer march I hope he would want me to take his place and keep the ANZAC spirit alive.

I really am shocked at what some of you have said...

And I am shocked by the idea that its OK to have non-veterens marching in the ANZAC Day parade.

The idea of the march is to show appreciation and respect to the veterens- i.e they match and we non-veterens show our appreciation to them. If there comes a time when there are no more veterens to whom we can directly express our appreciation, then there will no longer be any point in having a march.

However, this does not mean that we forget them- I don't know where you got that idea from anything posted above. The Dawn Service would continue for example.

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
The whole point of ANZAC day is to remember what our elders did for us. The descendants of the WWI diggers are doing exactly that, remembering. I reckon those descendants did their country proud, by not forgetting what their parents, grandparents or Great Grandparents did for them.

I wore my grandfather's (WWII) medals in the march in Sydney, because people shouldn't forget what he did, even if he is no longer alive.

A smaller number of people marching would just be a sign that we dont really care about the people who are missing, those who, even though they died a generation ago, still did something incredible.

Remember them- of course. Take up their places in the march? No I don't think so.

By the way, I was actually marching as a musician there, but the point is still the same.

It isn't about who is marching those medals, or that photo of a lost one, down the street. It is the deeds that people did that they represent.

When they are long gone to us, their personalities so distant, we may not be able to remember the people, but at least we can remember the deeds they did. We are showing respect to the veterans by doing this. A dawn service is so impersonal - we remember a group of people as a whole. But the march personalises it all. Each person there is or represents a person that suffered for us. No dawn service, nor a list of names on a wall, can do that.

If people really are incapable of remembering without a parade to help them- then have a photograph of veterens carried by serving soldiers sailers or airmen. You then have your personal representation and using servicemen/ women will stop it from looking like a procession of cattle.

I don't think we need a march. I don't think the descendents should wear the medals and march. My great grandfather was in WW1 but I hardly remember him. To me its an insult if I were to wear the medals he earned. If descendents have to march have children do it or carry the medals on cushions or something. I think there would be to many people who would get a kick out of wearing medals their ancestors won. If they want to march, join the army, march in uniform and carry a frame with a photo of your grandfather or something.

Thanks for the Thread Zardnaar.
Lest we forget.

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
[B]The whole point of ANZAC day is to remember what our elders did for us. The descendants of the WWI diggers are doing exactly that, remembering. I reckon those descendants did their country proud, by not forgetting what their parents, grandparents or Great Grandparents did for them.

The Dawn Service on ANZAC Day and the minutes silence on the 11th of November serve to commemorate the sacrafices made during wars. The ANZAC march serves to thank veterans for their personal service. 100,000 people didn't line the streets of Sydney to wave at the middle aged men and women who were there trying to trade off their grandparents service.

im sharing your honour and sadness...
you know ,that was not our fault...

Originally posted by ottomankhadi
im sharing your honour and sadness...
you know ,that was not our fault...

We were invading your country. Turkey lost alot of troops as well. Personally I don't blame the Turks for anything..

maybe its a bit bizarre but i ve watched a documentary about the Chanakkale(Galipoli) war and it's shown that in the end of the war Turkish and Anzac soldiers helped themselves to being existed.. for example Turkish soldiers were giving water anzacs and anzacs're giving meal to us...
that was not our war ... they had recognized it in the end...

Originally posted by ottomankhadi
maybe its a bit bizarre but i ve watched a documentary about the Chanakkale(Galipoli) war and it's shown that in the end of the war Turkish and Anzac soldiers helped themselves to being existed.. for example Turkish soldiers were giving water anzacs and anzacs're giving meal to us...
that was not our war ... they had recognized it in the end...

It happened. The soldiers traded food and tobacco with each other. War can be odd.

I believe that WWI was a fight between Generals and leaders in map rooms, and not the soldiers. That is why this sort of thing happened. ANZACS and Turks poking targets above the trench line (in at least one case a cut out of the Kaiser) for each other to shoot at, or the Christmas football match. It was a case of "Lions led by donkeys".

Nonconformist: I believe something like that happened on a christmas say in WWII as well. Shows that what you are saying is too true.

I noticed that the Vietnam vets are getting bigger cheers as they go past. Maybe it is to redeem our country from the sour reception we gave them when they came back. They really were lions led by donkeys. Put into a war that had no immediate threat to ourselves, in situations they shouldn't have been in.

When all our soldiers in Iraq come back, lets give them a good welcome home. They joined to defend our country, not to be players in politics. Whatever happens in Iraq, just dont disreguard them.

Originally posted by nonconformist
I believe that WWI was a fight between Generals and leaders in map rooms, and not the soldiers.

While it would be nice if that were true, in reality almost all soldiers hated their oponents, and usually did everything in their powers to kill them. Cease fires and 'agreements' were very much the exception rather then the rule. Remember, the soldiers of WW1 were products of exactly the same society that produced the generals - nationalism wasn't confined to officers.

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
I noticed that the Vietnam vets are getting bigger cheers as they go past. Maybe it is to redeem our country from the sour reception we gave them when they came back. They really were lions led by donkeys.

Australian troops actually enjoyed fairly warm repections upon their return. Unlike the US, the Vietnam war was consistantly popular with the Australian public, and units generally enjoyed welcome home parades upon their return. While the reception given to the troops could have been warmer, it's something of an exageration to call their treatment 'sour' or even compare it to how returning American vets were treated.

Originally posted by Case
Australian troops actually enjoyed fairly warm repections upon their return. Unlike the US, the Vietnam war was consistantly popular with the Australian public, and units generally enjoyed welcome home parades upon their return. While the reception given to the troops could have been warmer, it's something of an exageration to call their treatment 'sour' or even compare it to how returning American vets were treated.
Hey, you know better than me. Though it still begs the question whether we will respect our Gulf War II veterans, or whether politics will get in the way.

As tens of thousands of people lined to streets of Sydney to welcome them home about 11 months ago I'd say so.

Lest we forget.

Lest we forget.

Lest we forget that we invaded a sovereign nation and got our arses handed to us through our own stupidity.

Kokoda is the sort of thing we should be thankful to veterans for. Not ANZAC Day.

Kokoda is the sort of thing we should be thankful to veterans for. Not ANZAC Day.ANZAC day is to remember all australian & new zealand veterans.

ANZAC day is to remember all australian & new zealand veterans.
I'm referring to the decision to place our veterans' day on the date of our landing at Gallipoli. I don't consider that a proud moment in Australian history, and find it a bizarre choice.

I'm referring to the decision to place our veterans' day on the date of our landing at Gallipoli. I don't consider that a proud moment in Australian history, and find it a bizarre choice.

It's less about pride but more because it's a tragic and significant event I think. It was Australia's and NZ's greatest single military disaster up until that point, so the date was chosen to remember those who sacrificed their lives (or whose lives were sacrificed, depending on your perspective) in the War. (I'm not sure when Anzac Day was first commemorated, but IIRC it was before WWII).

Lest we forget how stupid war is.

(I'm not sure when Anzac Day was first commemorated, but IIRC it was before WWII).
First in 1916, in New Zealand apparently. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZAC_Day)

Yet we continue to fight in wars with as much reason as we did then - none.

I know the reasoning behind ANZAC Day, I just don't understand it.

Wow I stated ths thread a year ago. Maybe it will get bumped next year. Don't forget the Turks either.

Wow I stated ths thread a year ago. Maybe it will get bumped next year. Don't forget the Turks either.
Don't worry, there's another thread about them on the first page as well. Not particularly flattering though.

Lest we forget that we invaded a sovereign nation and got our arses handed to us through our own stupidity.

Kokoda is the sort of thing we should be thankful to veterans for. Not ANZAC Day.
This,
It's less about pride but more because it's a tragic and significant event I think. It was Australia's and NZ's greatest single military disaster up until that point, so the date was chosen to remember those who sacrificed their lives (or whose lives were sacrificed, depending on your perspective) in the War. (I'm not sure when Anzac Day was first commemorated, but IIRC it was before WWII).

Lest we forget how stupid war is.
and this.

Although I don't like the idea of having a public holiday to revere military service people. It seems to glorify war too much, even if the idea of it isn't intended as such. Perhaps I have a natural aversion to it due to the commercialisation and sensationalisation of it more than anything. I mean, all the TV stations are like, 'aren't we brilliant, having a short interlude before an ad break with a bugle and a pretty picture', and the politicians are going to Anzac Cove thinking, 'my show of unbridled nationalism will boost my popularity.' This is pretty sickening, and debases the whole day. So, compiled with the whole militaristic theme of it all, I don't like it.

While it would be nice if that were true, in reality almost all soldiers hated their oponents, and usually did everything in their powers to kill them. Cease fires and 'agreements' were very much the exception rather then the rule. Remember, the soldiers of WW1 were products of exactly the same society that produced the generals - nationalism wasn't confined to officers.

Nationalism in Europe was mainly againist neighbours. I would be not sure if Turks and Anzacs hated each other.
Many people from Austria-Hungary went to war againist own will. Some hated more their co-belligrents than proclaimed enemies.:D

This,

and this.

Although I don't like the idea of having a public holiday to revere military service people. It seems to glorify war too much, even if the idea of it isn't intended as such. Perhaps I have a natural aversion to it due to the commercialisation and sensationalisation of it more than anything. I mean, all the TV stations are like, 'aren't we brilliant, having a short interlude before an ad break with a bugle and a pretty picture', and the politicians are going to Anzac Cove thinking, 'my show of unbridled nationalism will boost my popularity.' This is pretty sickening, and debases the whole day. So, compiled with the whole militaristic theme of it all, I don't like it.
Don't get me started on the commercialisation of ANZAC Day. Two years ago, I noticed a Ralph magazine in the newsagents, with Nikki Webster - yes, that Nikki Webster - on the cover in camouflage lingerie. The headline was "One for the boys." That's a great way to celebrate ANZAC Day - putting some slut in a khaki bikini to sell some magazines. And that is not even close to the worst thing I've seen.

It's easy for you all to take your Ivory tower positions and be all glib and trite about the sacrifices that were made during the Great War, but had you been there, you'd have been a digger, happily sailing off to Sulva from Australia.

I dont beleive for a minute any of you who arent opposed to killing from a religious point of view (i.e Quakers) would have opposed going over to the Dardanelles and killing for the Regina, because you wouldn't have known any better.
At the time, nationalism, militarism and such were the norms for society, and any of you who claims that they would not have been supceptible is a damn liar. The only reason you can say these kind of comments now is with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, and the fact that the Great War, and the following wars changed the perception of warare forever.

And that's why we praise our veterans of that war, no matter what nationality, whether Aussie, NZ, English, Canadian, French, German, Turkish, austro-Hungarian, or whatever.
As far as they were concerned, that was their duty.

It's easy for you all to take your Ivory tower positions and be all glib and trite about the sacrifices that were made during the Great War, but had you been there, you'd have been a digger, happily sailing off to Sulva from Australia.

I dont beleive for a minute any of you who arent opposed to killing from a religious point of view (i.e Quakers) would have opposed going over to the Dardanelles and killing for the Regina, because you wouldn't have known any better.
At the time, nationalism, militarism and such were the norms for society, and any of you who claims that they would not have been supceptible is a damn liar. The only reason you can say these kind of comments now is with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, and the fact that the Great War, and the following wars changed the perception of warare forever.

And that's why we praise our veterans of that war, no matter what nationality, whether Aussie, NZ, English, Canadian, French, German, Turkish, austro-Hungarian, or whatever.
As far as they were concerned, that was their duty.
So we should praise them for doing their "duty?" You do realise that many SS officers saw killing Jews as their duty, don't you? Why should we praise them for doing things that were strategically stupid and did nothing to benefit these countries?

I guess I'm a damned liar, because I guarantee I wouldn't be susceptible, same way as I'm not susceptible to a bunch of societal norms now. Why? I have a nasty habit of reading.

Lest we forget that we invaded a sovereign nation and got our arses handed to us through our own stupidity.


:confused: umh - you happened to be at war with that state - and just because the ottomans did not pose a direct threat to Australia, does not mean that a victory here would not contribute to an overall victory in the war sooner, and therefore ultimately save many lives, including potentially many Armenians if it had succeeded.

I'm referring to the decision to place our veterans' day on the date of our landing at Gallipoli. I don't consider that a proud moment in Australian history, and find it a bizarre choice.

Some of you seem to reject these Veterans Holidays because they 'glorify war'. Lest we forget, I always thought that the original purpose of Remembrance Day in Canada, Veteran's Day in the US, etc. was to remember the sacrifices, not celebrate the victories. And in it was a stern warning not to take the lives of our soldiers for granted, a lesson that was learned in WWII. Too bad the original vets aren't around anymore to remind us of that. Huddling in trenches in the first gas attack at Ypres with nothing but piss-soaked rags was maybe not our proudest moment either, but it was a defining one.


Although I don't like the idea of having a public holiday to revere military service people. It seems to glorify war too much, even if the idea of it isn't intended as such. So, compiled with the whole militaristic theme of it all, I don't like it.

Smug self righteousness. Fine - you aren't forced to be in the front line, but you could honor those who are.

Don't get personal pls. Infraction given. - KD

It's easy for you all to take your Ivory tower positions and be all glib and trite about the sacrifices that were made during the Great War, ....The only reason you can say these kind of comments now is with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, and the fact that the Great War, and the following wars changed the perception of warare forever.

And that's why we praise our veterans of that war, no matter what nationality, whether Aussie, NZ, English, Canadian, French, German, Turkish, austro-Hungarian, or whatever.
As far as they were concerned, that was their duty.

:goodjob:

:confused: umh - you happened to be at war with that state - and just because the ottomans did not pose a direct threat to Australia, does not mean that a victory here would not contribute to an overall victory in the war sooner, and therefore ultimately save many lives, including potentially many Armenians if it had succeeded.
I've got no problem with trying to win a war we're involved in. I have problems with our involving ourselves in said war, and with how stupidly we handled our small part in it. I'm also very angry at the myth that it was evil English officers that caused all our problems, when in large part we did it to ourselves.

Some of you seem to reject these Veterans Holidays because they 'glorify war'. Lest we forget, I always thought that the original purpose of Remembrance Day in Canada, Veteran's Day in the US, etc. was to remember the sacrifices, not celebrate the victories. And in it was a stern warning not to take the lives of our soldiers for granted, a lesson that was learned in WWII. Too bad the original vets aren't around anymore to remind us of that. Huddling in trenches in the first gas attack at Ypres with nothing but piss-soaked rags was maybe not our proudest moment either, but it was a defining one.
A large part of that is because they do actively go out of their way to glorify war quite a bit of the time. I actually quite enjoyed the commercial campaign this year, which involved veterans and families talking about their loved ones that died in war. That's what these days are supposed to be about, not the crap that they often seem to ential these days. I am not proud of Australia's actions. I have nothing against the men themselves.

Smug self righteousness. Fine - you aren't forced to be in the front line, but you could honor those who are.
I honour those who deserve it - I don't give out blanket respect for everyone to ever wear a uniform.

So we should praise them for doing their "duty?" You do realise that many SS officers saw killing Jews as their duty, don't you? Why should we praise them for doing things that were strategically stupid and did nothing to benefit these countries?

SS officers who killed Jews were almiost 100% volunteers, and you can in no way, with any intellectual honesty, compare mass conscription and being sent to fight for the Empire to being a member of a voluntary political organisation dedicated to the subjugation of those deemed fit to subjugate, and I dare say that taking such an ill informed opinion is quite insulting.

A much more apt comparion would be the 1939 invasion of Poland, which most Germans saw as their sacred duty towards the Heimat, which, while yes, ill informed and brutal, can be explained.

I guess I'm a damned liar, because I guarantee I wouldn't be susceptible, same way as I'm not susceptible to a bunch of societal norms now. Why? I have a nasty habit of reading.

Yes, cos in 1914 you'd have had the benefit of the internet, a mass media composed of different ideologies, and the sheer educational and cultural and societal back to be able to make these choices.
Unless you're a Methodist or Quaker, or a dedicated Fabian, or member of the ILP I'm calling BS.

SS officers who killed Jews were almiost 100% volunteers, and you can in no way, with any intellectual honesty, compare mass conscription and being sent to fight for the Empire to being a member of a voluntary political organisation dedicated to the subjugation of those deemed fit to subjugate, and I dare say that taking such an ill informed opinion is quite insulting.

A much more apt comparion would be the 1939 invasion of Poland, which most Germans saw as their sacred duty towards the Heimat, which, while yes, ill informed and brutal, can be explained.
Fine, use the invasion of Poland as a better example, because it dealt with conscripts. Should we praise German soldiers for taking part in that? After all, it was their duty? Horsecrap.

I praise people who do things worthy of praise. Gallipoli was a goddamn tragedy, and farce, all rolled into one,and I damn sure wouldn't have sailed off happily. I may have sailed off, due to the whole conscription thing, but I wouldn't have been proud of it.

Yes, cos in 1914 you'd have had the benefit of the internet, a mass media composed of different ideologies, and the sheer educational and cultural and societal back to be able to make these choices.
Unless you're a Methodist or Quaker, or a dedicated Fabian, or member of the ILP I'm calling BS.

Yes, because everything I know comes from mass-media. You're talking to someone that got the internet when he was about 17, didn't have a television in the house until he was five, and spent most of his life reading books. Books, you know, those funny little things they have in libraries? The library in my hometown was founded before 1914, as was my school, though it was on a different spot. My primary school wasn't. Considering how much smaller the library would have been at that stage, it is possible I could have gone through the whole thing, instead of just several thousand - yes thousand, that's not an exaggeration - of the contents by the age of eighteen.

When I was younger, I'd read anything. I developed favourite authors and what-not, but I would read literally anything. I'd read the entire Earth's Children series -not the usual children's fare - then in circulation by the age of eight, had polished off a few biographies of Napoleon by the time high school started, and just generally read things from all genres and sources. Since history was a favourite of mine, I read as much of it as I could find, first military, then political when I discovered it to be even more interesting.

In short, if we assume I'm born in 1896 in roughly the same situation, in the same area, you bet your sweet arse I'd be extremely well-informed regarding the history leading to WWI. I wouldn't trust the newspapers of the time, as I haven't trusted the modern media since I was a very young age now, long before I ever hopped on the internet for the first time in high school, and I wouldn't be nationalistic. The reason I'm not nationalistic or racist now is because I read everything I could get my hands on when I was younger. All this was before, you guessed it, I had access to the internet, which I used primarily for pornography and wrestling information up until about two years ago, when university forced me to actually use the internet for something practical. So don't tell me who and what I am little man, you don't have a damn clue.

Also, I don't really see Australia's mass media as being composed of different ideologies. At least, not what I have regular access to. My usual daily read is the Telegraph, because I find it absolutely hilarious.

Fine, use the invasion of Poland as a better example, because it dealt with conscripts. Should we praise German soldiers for taking part in that? After all, it was their duty? Horsecrap.

I praise people who do things worthy of praise. Gallipoli was a goddamn tragedy, and farce, all rolled into one,and I damn sure wouldn't have sailed off happily. I may have sailed off, due to the whole conscription thing, but I wouldn't have been proud of it.

They shouldnt be praised as such, but neither condemned. Even Germany, a country which has much trouble with its past, still remembers their fallen and salutes them.
http://i.pbase.com/u39/kevbelcher/upload/25254151.Scan10039.JPG
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1863203_8a4f4bb3bf.jpg

Yes, because everything I know comes from mass-media. You're talking to someone that got the internet when he was about 17, didn't have a television in the house until he was five, and spent most of his life reading books. Books, you know, those funny little things they have in libraries? The library in my hometown was founded before 1914, as was my school, though it was on a different spot. My primary school wasn't. Considering how much smaller the library would have been at that stage, it is possible I could have gone through the whole thing, instead of just several thousand - yes thousand, that's not an exaggeration - of the contents by the age of eighteen.

When I was younger, I'd read anything. I developed favourite authors and what-not, but I would read literally anything. I'd read the entire Earth's Children series -not the usual children's fare - then in circulation by the age of eight, had polished off a few biographies of Napoleon by the time high school started, and just generally read things from all genres and sources. Since history was a favourite of mine, I read as much of it as I could find, first military, then political when I discovered it to be even more interesting.

In short, if we assume I'm born in 1896 in roughly the same situation, in the same area, you bet your sweet arse I'd be extremely well-informed regarding the history leading to WWI. I wouldn't trust the newspapers of the time, as I haven't trusted the modern media since I was a very young age now, long before I ever hopped on the internet for the first time in high school, and I wouldn't be nationalistic. The reason I'm not nationalistic or racist now is because I read everything I could get my hands on when I was younger. All this was before, you guessed it, I had access to the internet, which I used primarily for pornography and wrestling information up until about two years ago, when university forced me to actually use the internet for something practical. So don't tell me who and what I am little man, you don't have a damn clue.

Also, I don't really see Australia's mass media as being composed of different ideologies. At least, not what I have regular access to. My usual daily read is the Telegraph, because I find it absolutely hilarious.

So you'd be you, instead of, say, someone sent off to be a sheep farmer, or work in industry at a young age or whatever?
And you wouldnt have been supceptible to what practically every other Australian was? Because you're evidently in the 0.5% of the population that is more intelligent that the 99.5% remaining?

What did your family do during the great war? What did they do before.
Because that's what you'd have been if you were born then.

And by the way, I have no doubt that had I been born for the first world war, I'd have happily been a Poilu and fought at Chemin des Dames, like my forefathers.

Or if I were in 1930s Germany, I'm pretty sure I'd have marched right into Poland to take what was rightfully mine.

It's easy for you all to take your Ivory tower positions and be all glib and trite about the sacrifices that were made during the Great War, but had you been there, you'd have been a digger, happily sailing off to Sulva from Australia.

I dont beleive for a minute any of you who arent opposed to killing from a religious point of view (i.e Quakers) would have opposed going over to the Dardanelles and killing for the Regina, because you wouldn't have known any better.
At the time, nationalism, militarism and such were the norms for society, and any of you who claims that they would not have been supceptible is a damn liar. The only reason you can say these kind of comments now is with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, and the fact that the Great War, and the following wars changed the perception of warare forever.

And that's why we praise our veterans of that war, no matter what nationality, whether Aussie, NZ, English, Canadian, French, German, Turkish, austro-Hungarian, or whatever.
As far as they were concerned, that was their duty.
This post basically sums up what I think. Good on you. :)
I praise people who do things worthy of praise. Gallipoli was a goddamn tragedy, and farce, all rolled into one,and I damn sure wouldn't have sailed off happily. I may have sailed off, due to the whole conscription thing, but I wouldn't have been proud of it.
'They say Achilles in the darkness stirred...
And Priam and his fifty sons
Wake all amazed, and hear the guns,
And shake for Troy again.'

Easy for you to say that now, of course.

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,

Remember Sharwood even if you did read if you were born in 1896, the books at your library would have been full of the glory of the empire, racist by modern standards (white mans burden), and the press was very nationalistic. There was also alot of pressure to conform, do your duty, and volunteer. People who didn't volunteer before conscription could often be pressured into it and I have read that womens underwear was hung outside your house, the implication being you're not a man and that you're a coward and had no honour. In a time where a mans word was considered better than a contract. No women would date you and you become a social outcast. The liberal war is bad attitude didn't exist for the most part.

Odds are we would have got on the boat and sung Rule Britannia.

While it would be nice if that were true, in reality almost all soldiers hated their oponents, and usually did everything in their powers to kill them. Cease fires and 'agreements' were very much the exception rather then the rule. Remember, the soldiers of WW1 were products of exactly the same society that produced the generals - nationalism wasn't confined to officers.
I don't know how you guys viewed Turks, but on the Western Front there was great respect between the British Empire and German forces, now if you go to the French there was generally more hatred. The British people had little history fighting against the Germans, on the other hand the French wanted revenge and have lots of bad history. Sure many soldiers did everything in their power to kill the enemy, but that was because if they didn't they would likely get killed, it does not matter their opinion of the enemy.

Lest we forget that we invaded a sovereign nation
A sovereign nation that chose to fight you. Sure they didn't declare war, but they were actively aiding the Germans and were preparing to attack Russia if they hadn't already.

I have problems with our involving ourselves in said war
As a subsidiary of Britain, it was not Australia's choice to get involved, technically you (and other Dominions) had no foreign policy at all, that was entirely Britain's sphere. And it may not be true today, but in 1914 many Australians identified with Britain. And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a huge segment of the Australian population immigrated during the latter half of the 19th century. Not a lot of time to cut off connections with your homeland.

Remember Sharwood even if you did read if you were born in 1896, the books at your library would have been full of the glory of the empire
Those those books can be quite interesting reading. I read a high school history text from the interwar years [no idea how I came across that], and virtually everything would be rejected by any amature historian now.

Back then Australians and New Zealanders looked at themselves as more British than colonials. Loyal to the Empire and all that.

It's easy for you all to take your Ivory tower positions and be all glib and trite about the sacrifices that were made during the Great War, but had you been there, you'd have been a digger, happily sailing off to Sulva from Australia.

I dont beleive for a minute any of you who arent opposed to killing from a religious point of view (i.e Quakers) would have opposed going over to the Dardanelles and killing for the Regina, because you wouldn't have known any better.
At the time, nationalism, militarism and such were the norms for society, and any of you who claims that they would not have been supceptible is a damn liar. The only reason you can say these kind of comments now is with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight, and the fact that the Great War, and the following wars changed the perception of warare forever.

And that's why we praise our veterans of that war, no matter what nationality, whether Aussie, NZ, English, Canadian, French, German, Turkish, austro-Hungarian, or whatever.
As far as they were concerned, that was their duty.

So what you are saying is that these people were deceived into doing their duty, and due to that, we should revere them and everyone else who has every been in the military? Firstly, that would be revering something that you are accepting was not quite right, and secondly, it would be revering someone for doing something that you say was their duty, i.e. something that they should have done. Why not have a public holiday for everyone type of person who does their duty? Jihadists, traffic wardens, and as Sharwood said, SS men.

:confused: umh - you happened to be at war with that state - and just because the ottomans did not pose a direct threat to Australia, does not mean that a victory here would not contribute to an overall victory in the war sooner, and therefore ultimately save many lives, including potentially many Armenians if it had succeeded.

It doesn't seem right to be celebrating a holiday on the anniversary of the invasion of some other country; a failed invasion at that. Whether the intentions of it were nice and correct or not, does not change the fact that it didn't succeed, and was a display of incompetence on the part of the British. So, you may, say, this incompetence made Australia and New Zealand realise that they could not count on the Motherland. Why not celebrate on the anniversary of Churchill's refusal to allow Australian troops to go home from Europe and defend Australia? That would be far more appropriate.

Some of you seem to reject these Veterans Holidays because they 'glorify war'. Lest we forget, I always thought that the original purpose of Remembrance Day in Canada, Veteran's Day in the US, etc. was to remember the sacrifices, not celebrate the victories. And in it was a stern warning not to take the lives of our soldiers for granted, a lesson that was learned in WWII. Too bad the original vets aren't around anymore to remind us of that. Huddling in trenches in the first gas attack at Ypres with nothing but piss-soaked rags was maybe not our proudest moment either, but it was a defining one.

It is used as a guilt trip towards anyone that is, firstly, a pacifist, and secondly, not a nationalist. It completely glorifies those two evils; unfettered nationalism and militarism. If it were trying to give the impression that war and unbridled jingoism are bad, it would not be saying how brave those men were for going and doing their duty for their country and Empire.

A large part of that is because they do actively go out of their way to glorify war quite a bit of the time. I actually quite enjoyed the commercial campaign this year, which involved veterans and families talking about their loved ones that died in war. That's what these days are supposed to be about, not the crap that they often seem to ential these days. I am not proud of Australia's actions. I have nothing against the men themselves.

This, although I don't like how we are supposed to respect the relatives of those that fought and died in wars as much as those that actually did. This is just example of how the day is used as a guilt trip. People say, "Aren't I so patriotic and brave, marching wearing the medals my grandfather won." That is not right.

What is even more wrong is pretending that all wars were righteous conflicts preserving everyone's freedom. Obviously that is a load of crap, yet it seems to be the impression that is given on every Anzac Day. Yet another reason why I don't like it.

Back then Australians and New Zealanders looked at themselves as more British than colonials. Loyal to the Empire and all that.

Not so much with the Irish though....

I said something similar on November 11 last year, gonna do this again.

Sure, it's about remembering those who fought and honouring that unimaginable sacrifice, but it also needs to be a day for outrage and anger at the stupidity of that war, and of war in general. Sadly, we've lost the "never again" mentality but the cruel criminality of war is at the heart of what war memorials are about, or at least should be about.

Especially now that most of the veterans of the war have died, let's be honest. They died for NOTHING. Millions lost friends, family, limbs, their minds, for absolutely nothing. We must feel greatly sorry for everyone who was tricked or forced into fighting, and incredibly impressed with the way they coped with what they were put through... but we must also be outraged at the fact that an entire generation of young people were put in such revoltingly cruel conditions as to be asked for such "sacrifices" in the first place.

We're in a time of war again, and we must always be vigilant that these notions of the heroic dead and their sacrifices, these parades and honours, does not put a sheen of respectability on the ugly cruelty of man using machines against man. Ordinary people who endured unbelievable horror out of a sense of duty deserve our respect, but we must also remember the way this sense of duty is so often horribly abused by our elites, then as now.

A big mistake people (ie, we lefty radical progressive dissenter types) make is thinking that they have to observe these days the same way stupid jingoist bogans do. This is a false dichotomy of the worst sort. Throwing your hands in the air, denigrating these days, saying "oh they glorify war" or "oh its so nationalist" and letting warmongers and nationalists dictate their symbolism is essentially giving up. War is ugly, gross and wrong, almost inherently a crime against humanity. This irreducible fact is not mutually exclusive with observing and respecting Anzac Day and Remembrance Day... in fact, it's closer to the true to the "never again" spirit of these days and it's more respectful towards the people who actually fought and died than the idiots using it for Ozzie Pride Day or whatever.

Lest we forget.

So what you are saying is that these people were deceived into doing their duty, and due to that, we should revere them and everyone else who has every been in the military? Firstly, that would be revering something that you are accepting was not quite right, and secondly, it would be revering someone for doing something that you say was their duty, i.e. something that they should have done. Why not have a public holiday for everyone type of person who does their duty? Jihadists, traffic wardens, and as Sharwood said, SS men.

I would like to know how people were deceived. They believed in their duty as citizens of the British Empire - the Boer War maybe was totally wrong through and through, but the stakes were too high in this one. Suppose the Commonwealth had left Europe to its fate, how confident would you have been alone in the face of Japanese expansion 20 years later ? World War I in retrospect was not one of the more justified conflicts, but Europe was a powder keg, and many nations did not have the luxury to choose. If you want to level your charge that war is fundamentally wrong, do so in this overall context, but remember that the Kaiser and his generals were not interested in peace at this time. I agree that politically, and militarily, our leaders and theirs failed their subjects, and our servicemen paid the price. Nationalism, and the old order collided head on with the realities of modern warfare. That's part of the meaning behind this day. As for the SS and Jihadists, fortunately we aren't celebrating them today.

It doesn't seem right to be celebrating a holiday on the anniversary of the invasion of some other country; a failed invasion at that. Whether the intentions of it were nice and correct or not, does not change the fact that it didn't succeed, and was a display of incompetence on the part of the British. So, you may, say, this incompetence made Australia and New Zealand realise that they could not count on the Motherland.

Some blame for mismanaging this campaign falls on Kitchener and Hamilton, but as others have alluded to, it is extremely inaccurate to blame this all on British incompetence. maybe on this occasion we should take a look at the human cost of Galliopli:

Gallipoli casualties
Source: Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs

Total Allies Dead 44,092 Wounded 96,937 Total 141,029
- United Kingdom Dead 21,255 Wounded 52,230 Total 73,485
- France (estimated) Dead 10,000 Wounded 17,000 Total 27,000
- Australia Dead 8,709 Wounded 19,441 Total 28,150
- New Zealand Dead 2,721 Wounded 4,752 Total 7,473
- India Dead 1,358 Wounded 3,421 Total 4,779
- Newfoundland Dead 49 Wounded 93 Total 142
Ottoman empire (estimated) Dead 86,692 Wounded 164,617 Total 251,309

Of course numbers alone do not convey the tragedy and demoralization. Another 200,000 allied soldiers were also sick with dysentery and fever from the unsanitary conditions. Relatively speaking though, the casualties suffered here were in a more favorable ratio than what was experienced on the western front at the time. EDIT: but that is small solace when 1 out of 2 was killed or disabled. This operation wasn't a success, but the evacuation was:

"Ironically the evacuation was the greatest Allied success of the campaign" More than a quarter million men escaped from a tight spot..."Amazingly, only two troops were lost during the evacuation despite the prior warnings of 50% casualties from Sir Ian Hamilton." That's pretty damn miraculous so celebrate that.


Why not celebrate on the anniversary of Churchill's refusal to allow Australian troops to go home from Europe and defend Australia? That would be far more appropriate.
Would it now ? Sounds pretty empty to me - troops stood where they were believed to be needed most, and as it turns out Australia never came close to falling to anybody.

It is used as a guilt trip towards anyone that is, firstly, a pacifist, and secondly, not a nationalist. It completely glorifies those two evils; unfettered nationalism and militarism. If it were trying to give the impression that war and unbridled jingoism are bad, it would not be saying how brave those men were for going and doing their duty for their country and Empire.

Do you think any nation can hide for ever from what goes on in the world around us ? I fear that the need for vigilance and some martial skill in our national inventories is necessary in order to defend the way of life we want, including the ability to reject war as a means except in the most dire circumstances.

They shouldnt be praised as such, but neither condemned. Even Germany, a country which has much trouble with its past, still remembers their fallen and salutes them.
http://i.pbase.com/u39/kevbelcher/upload/25254151.Scan10039.JPG
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1863203_8a4f4bb3bf.jpg
I agree that we shouldn't condemn men for following orders, so long as they didn't commit war crimes in the process. But I see no reason whatoever to praise them.

So you'd be you, instead of, say, someone sent off to be a sheep farmer, or work in industry at a young age or whatever?
And you wouldnt have been supceptible to what practically every other Australian was? Because you're evidently in the 0.5% of the population that is more intelligent that the 99.5% remaining?

What did your family do during the great war? What did they do before.
Because that's what you'd have been if you were born then.
Not one member of my family has been to war. My great-grandfather lied about his age and joined the army in 1942. He spent the entire war guarding an airstrip nowhere near the Japanese. They wouldn't send him to Europe because he was German, even though that's where he wanted to go. My great-grandmother was a Polish Jew, you see. My family's never been terribly nationalistic, but they had a personal score to settle with the Nazis.

In 1914 my great-great-grandfather on the Sharwood side was in charge of the Baxter factory in Goulburn. As such, he was in a protected industry - Baxter manufactured footwear for the services, doesn't seem terribly important, but in a small town with a major factory, you need all the skilled workers to stay there that you can - and could not be sent to war if he wanted to. Considering his best friend at the time was my other great-great-grandfather, a German immigrant who worked in a bank and was a member of the labour movement, he also never wanted to. I know, I've read his diaries, he probably would have been tried for treason if he said such stuff out loud.

My family has always been well-educated, and has actually decreased in importance somewhat dramatically during the post-war period, when just about every other family was becoming wealthier. Baxter's recently shut down, and I'm the only male member of the family to never work there in a managerial capacity. In 1914, assuming I'm 18 or so, my family would probably swing me a job there to keep me out of the war. Hell, they'd likely do it even if by some strange twist I wanted to go to war.

Remember Sharwood even if you did read if you were born in 1896, the books at your library would have been full of the glory of the empire, racist by modern standards (white mans burden), and the press was very nationalistic. There was also alot of pressure to conform, do your duty, and volunteer. People who didn't volunteer before conscription could often be pressured into it and I have read that womens underwear was hung outside your house, the implication being you're not a man and that you're a coward and had no honour. In a time where a mans word was considered better than a contract. No women would date you and you become a social outcast. The liberal war is bad attitude didn't exist for the most part.
Honestly, that's not terribly different from my life growing up anyway. Even the women's underwear part. I had to move to the city to get away from that sort of crap. Peer pressure has never done a damn thing to me. Possibly a result of Asphergers, or maybe I'm just naturally contrary, but I've always had a habit of completely ignoring what other people said and doing what I felt was warranted. The only people I ever listened to were my grandparents.

Odds are we would have got on the boat and sung Rule Britannia.
As I've explained, my family was actually fairly well-off at the time, and the German side was involved in the labour movement. I have always suspected that their political beliefs were a tad on the radical side, possibly due to the picture of Lenin I found in a journal years ago. So I'd almost certainly have access to more political viewpoints than most.

In any case, my hometown has not been racist since the very early stages of settlement there. Aboriginal workers were too important to treat badly, especially considering we were close enough to major cities that we had to pay them fair wages to keep them from leaving. So I likely wouldn't end up racist. Hell, bear in mind that the encyclopaedia collection I have in my bedroom to this day treats The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact, and the entry on race includes the phrase "the negro is inherently inferior to the white man" and it's a wonder I'm not a racist prick now.

I just remembered that there's a war memorial in my town actually, and it's very surprising how unbiased it is. Probably due to there being a good-size group of German immigrants there.

A sovereign nation that chose to fight you. Sure they didn't declare war, but they were actively aiding the Germans and were preparing to attack Russia if they hadn't already.
They attacked Russia and got whooped. A sovereign nation that chose to fight Britain. Not us.

As a subsidiary of Britain, it was not Australia's choice to get involved, technically you (and other Dominions) had no foreign policy at all, that was entirely Britain's sphere. And it may not be true today, but in 1914 many Australians identified with Britain. And correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that a huge segment of the Australian population immigrated during the latter half of the 19th century. Not a lot of time to cut off connections with your homeland.
There was a huge stink actually, in WWII, about our PM at the time's comment that; "Britain is at war, and as such Australia is now at war." By that point Australia had an individual foreign policy, and our PM basically abrogated our right to it. Fairly stupid decision.

Just because Australia didn't have a foreign policy at the time, doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a foreign policy. Australia should have developed its own foreign policy from the damn start, and it should have been smarter than "help your white brothers America. Yellow people are scary."

Don't forget, a huge segment of Australia's population is Irish as well. They weren't too keen on Mother Britain. My family emigrated much earlier than that, except for the German side, which obviously didn't have ties to Britain.

They attacked Russia and got whooped. A sovereign nation that chose to fight Britain. Not us.
During WWI Australia was part of the Empire. You were a subsidiary of Britain.

There was a huge stink actually, in WWII, about our PM at the time's comment that; "Britain is at war, and as such Australia is now at war." By that point Australia had an individual foreign policy, and our PM basically abrogated our right to it. Fairly stupid decision.
Yes, after the Statute of Westminster things were entirely different. The Dominions became partners, rather than subsidiaries. And WWI caused a major push away from Britain in many parts of the Empire.

Just because Australia didn't have a foreign policy at the time, doesn't mean we shouldn't have had a foreign policy. Australia should have developed its own foreign policy from the damn start, and it should have been smarter than "help your white brothers America. Yellow people are scary."
Your laws said that Britain handled your foreign policy, you try to deal with a major country they would laugh in your face and call up London. And if Britain wanted to they could turn you back into a colony.

Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be.

I don't care about you, I recognize that some people opposed the war and, especially, serving overseas. Times were completely different though, and without being put into that situation I don't believe you can honestly say, with certainty, what you would have done.

So what you are saying is that these people were deceived into doing their duty, and due to that, we should revere them and everyone else who has every been in the military? Firstly, that would be revering something that you are accepting was not quite right, and secondly, it would be revering someone for doing something that you say was their duty, i.e. something that they should have done. Why not have a public holiday for everyone type of person who does their duty? Jihadists, traffic wardens, and as Sharwood said, SS men.

Seriously, you're comparing our brave Tommies, Poilus and Diggers to the SS? Really?
Can you not see the differenc between:
a)a conscripted legitimate military force embarking on a cause generally seen as just and perfectly legal under internaitional war
and
b) a volunteer political organisation, dedicated to the furtherings of the caus eof a single ideology, engaging in mass murder and genocide?

If you can't then you're either very, very naive, or yo're a "rawr, look how lefty ands angsty and cool I am, and watch me hold my comfortable white middle class liberal pseudo-socialist ideas and appear morally better than you".
I'm pretty much one of the few old guard socialists left here, and recognisedly pretty radical by all accounts from the other old guard, and none of us would desecrate the memory of those who knew no beter, and who bloody died and had their lives destroyed by a useless war.
If you wanna be all angsty and punk-rock, hate the politcs and hate the cultural and political climates at the time, not the people forged by their epoch.

Oh, and by the way, yeah, there are some members of the Waffen SS who do deserve to be commemorated, again as misguided people, but as damned decnt soldiers, who gave it all for the wrong cause.

It doesn't seem right to be celebrating a holiday on the anniversary of the invasion of some other country; a failed invasion at that. Whether the intentions of it were nice and correct or not, does not change the fact that it didn't succeed, and was a display of incompetence on the part of the British. So, you may, say, this incompetence made Australia and New Zealand realise that they could not count on the Motherland. Why not celebrate on the anniversary of Churchill's refusal to allow Australian troops to go home from Europe and defend Australia? That would be far more appropriate.

It's a date. We hae Rememberance Day on Armistice Day, and likewise. ANZAC day was chosen for that date because of its connotations.

Invasion? Turkey had declared war on the Allies, so to be honest, it's htheir own "fault", not the Allies, unless you wat to make some misguided revisionist claims.

Oh and by the way, the Turks took it very professionally and considered it a standard part of war, which they had opted into.

In fact Kemal Ataturk, leader of Tukey after the war, said,
Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

so, uh, yeah.

Incompetance on the part of the British? You've been reading too much Rupert Murdoch, and you must have watched Peter Weir's Gallipoli too much.
The attacks you bemoan so much were largely fluffed by Major General John Antill, and Major General Frederic Hughes of the imperial Australian Army!


Oh and by the way, the Aussies and the NZers stayed loyal to the Regina, right up to post WW2. In fact, they were amongst our bet troopsin Libya, and they fought there quite willingly, ungrudgingly, and for the Regina.



It is used as a guilt trip towards anyone that is, firstly, a pacifist, and secondly, not a nationalist. It completely glorifies those two evils; unfettered nationalism and militarism. If it were trying to give the impression that war and unbridled jingoism are bad, it would not be saying how brave those men were for going and doing their duty for their country and Empire.
Its not a "guilt trip". You choose tro see it as a guilkt trip to better justify your position.
It's merely a day to remember the dead.
or is Holocaust Rememberance day a guilt trip to people who are opposed to genocide (which would mbe most people I assume?)It doesn't glorify nationalism or militarism, and noone chooses to do it as such, and it's only pseudo-liberal faux-lefties who have no concept of the circumstances who do.
I tell you now, a lot of pacifists who served in the army, as medics or non-combatants remember their dead. Are the Society of Friends Ambulance Service as you say "[unfetteredly] nationalistic and militaristic"? Because as a socialist, ideologically pacifist relgion, I'm sure they'd be fairly upset to hear that.

And what about those who came back from the war and vowed never again? And became pacifists? To remember their dead comrades, their friends is to succomb to jingoism?


What is even more wrong is pretending that all wars were righteous conflicts preserving everyone's freedom. Obviously that is a load of crap, yet it seems to be the impression that is given on every Anzac Day. Yet another reason why I don't like it.
Again, your argument is based almost entirely on strawmen. I don't think a credible historian has put forwards that argument since 1939.


I'd just like to say, that I'm pretty incandescent that two people tryigng to act all impassive and angsty and rebellious and such have managed to turn a thread about remembering those who fell in the line of action, to comparing them to the SS perpetrating the Holocaust.

For shame.

nonconformist is right, the allies could not compare to the SS. The SS were far superior soldiers.

Not necessarily. Most people have little or no understanding of what the SS actually was, thinking they were either Gestapo torturing everyone they can, running concentration camps, or the best soldiers in the Reich (who gleefully went around butchering people).

While the Waffen SS had many elite units (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, for example) and ones extremely devoted to the Reich (Hitlerjugend) that everybody knows about, but they also had some pretty bad units made up of non-Germans from the East, especially the conscripted ones. And as the war went on they had their share of poorly trained recruits, they just generally were better equipped.

I'd ask to any mod that this thread be split into two, one about people who have the decency to want to commemorate the day, and one where other can whine about exactly why the Tommies of WWI were morally worse than the SS gassing Jews at Auschwitz.

Just to clear it up, I'm not saying that the two are comparable, I'm saying that your revering someone for doing their duty is a moot point. The SS men were doing their duty just as much as the Allies in WWI. Which shows that it is clearly not something worthy of great adulation.

Edit: BTW, I'd respond to the rest, but what's the point?

Just to clear it up, I'm not saying that the two are comparable, I'm saying that your revering someone for doing their duty is a moot point. The SS men were doing their duty just as much as the Allies in WWI. Which shows that it is clearly not something worthy of great adulation.

uh, no they weren't.

If you can't see the difference between a legal miltiary action, by conscripts, and mass genocide perpetrated by volunteers, you've got problems.

Edit: BTW, I'd respond to the rest, but what's the point?
I assume it's because you concede on all those points?

uh, no they weren't.

If you can't see the difference between a legal miltiary action, by conscripts, and mass genocide perpetrated by volunteers, you've got problems.

Your first post seems to imply that this legal military action may not have been fully justified. You said, "As far as they were concerned, they were just doing their duty", and apparently that is what we are meant to revere them for. Now, members of the SS who perpetrated the Holocaust also were just doing their duty, as far as they were concerned. But we wouldn't dream, and rightfully so, of revering them. So it follows that if this type of celebration/thanks should not be given for the sheer sake of people doing their duty.

I assume it's because you concede on all those points?

No, I just have a different viewpoint that we can't possibly agree on.

Your first post seems to imply that this legal military action may not have been fully justified. You said, "As far as they were concerned, they were just doing their duty", and apparently that is what we are meant to revere them for. Now, members of the SS who perpetrated the Holocaust also were just doing their duty, as far as they were concerned. But we wouldn't dream, and rightfully so, of revering them. So it follows that if this type of celebration/thanks should not be given for the sheer sake of people doing their duty.

Your posts to this matter are consistantly more full of strawmen than a scarecrow emporium.
You're the only one who has ever brought up "revere", which I think you'll find has a very different connotation to "remember" and "honour".
The members of the "SS" as you say (which is in itself very deceptive; you are referring specifically to the SS-VT, and the Allgemeine SS, but are still encompassing the Waffen SS who did have a number of very good soldiers who never perpetrated any crimes and as such yes, deserve to be remembered. Look up Fritz Klingenberg) were a volunteer organisation who weren't doing their duty, they were doing something they knew was morally wrong, but they did it for personal gain by and by.
Not many of them were fanatical Nazis.

Now, I've really had enough of your constant obtuse comparisons between, and I'll say it for, what, the fourth time, a legitimate military force as recognised by every international standard and law at the time, and even today, and an organisation which was branded criminal multiple times under different charges and was responsible for the genocide of 12 million.

How can you really, with any intellectual honesty, compare the two?


No, I just have a different viewpoint that we can't possibly agree on.
It has nothing to do with "viiewpoints" it has to do with the fact that you are bungling, misrepresenting, or are just completely unaware of the facts.

Like I said, the ANZACs proudly fought for their Regina.

The Nek was commanded by Australians, not Brits.

Turkey declared war on the Allies.

There are not "viewpoints", these are incontrovertible facts.

And this is, in conclusion, why you are wrong.

Turkey declared war on the Allies.
Technically, no.
Turkey actively aided Germany and then attacked Russia without declaring war. The Allies then declared war. For practical purposes it is the same thing, just a technicality.

Honestly this bickering is stupid and pointless. All countries should honour those who gave their lives for their country. I don't care what you were doing or if you volunteered or were conscripted (and the one argument fails in that the SS did contain conscripts and the Australian forces were largely volunteer based, I believe all those serving in Gallipoli were volunteers). These people gave up years of their lives, had the rest irrevocably changed, or ended in the service of their country. Those specific people who decided to commit atrocities of their own free will should be treated as such, but you can't say "all SS were evil" even among the volunteers, there were people who chose to join the SS as they would be conscripted into the Wehrmacht otherwise and figured their best chance of survival lay with the SS, not to mention all those people who had been indoctrinated from their youth. And there were plenty of atrocities and war crimes committed by Wehrmacht units.

No member of the SS-VT was a conscript, excepting Ukrainians, who were, by all accounts, the most enthusiastic at killing jews.

Research has shown quite conclusively that all Germans serving in camps were volunteers, and had the option to leave if they wanted.
Not a single German SS man was sanctioned or otherwised punished for refusal to take part in the Holocaust.

No member of the SS-VT was a conscript
I know that, but excepting your previous post nobody has made any distinction between the various parts of the SS, some of which had significant numbers of conscripts.

Research has shown quite conclusively that all Germans serving in camps were volunteers, and had the option to leave if they wanted.
How many stayed because they wanted to do what was happening in the camps, and how many stayed because it kept them off the front, and probably figured it would happen whether they did it or not? As well, many of those people had been indoctrinated by the Nazi government, without which they may well have not done such things. While not a noble act, there isn't necessarily evil in those people.

Not a single German SS man was sanctioned or otherwised punished for refusal to take part in the Holocaust.
One problem with that: when an army is in the field, refusing to do something is probably not a good idea, even if given the option. I expect many soldiers in all wars and on all sides felt compelled to do things they otherwise wouldn't simply to not be separated from their comrades, who may then have reason to question what they will do in battle.

I am not saying that there were no horrible people in the SS, but that just because someone was in the SS does not mean they were evil and some are worthy of being honoured.

We digress, really, from the original point of this thread :/

You're the only one who has ever brought up "revere", which I think you'll find has a very different connotation to "remember" and "honour".

Revere = venerate = honour = respect. Whatever word you use for it, you can do it without having a commercialised, sensationalised, nationalised, and militarised holiday for it.

The members of the "SS" as you say (which is in itself very deceptive; you are referring specifically to the SS-VT, and the Allgemeine SS, but are still encompassing the Waffen SS who did have a number of very good soldiers who never perpetrated any crimes and as such yes, deserve to be remembered. Look up Fritz Klingenberg) were a volunteer organisation who weren't doing their duty, they were doing something they knew was morally wrong, but they did it for personal gain by and by.
Not many of them were fanatical Nazis.

I don't know particulars about the SS, but to generalise, they thought that they were doing it for the good of Germany. Even if you take Himmler, for example, he was certainly not apolitical. He thought that the Holocaust was a justifiable evil, so to speak.

Now, I've really had enough of your constant obtuse comparisons between, and I'll say it for, what, the fourth time, a legitimate military force as recognised by every international standard and law at the time, and even today, and an organisation which was branded criminal multiple times under different charges and was responsible for the genocide of 12 million.

How can you really, with any intellectual honesty, compare the two?

No, probably not actually, I'll admit. It's an extreme example to prove a point.

Let's compare parking wardens, instead. They do their job because it is their duty (although you may argue that they get some kind of sick thrill out of it). Should we have a public holiday to honour them? They put their lives on the line all the time, being subject to road rage, but they aren't going to get a public holiday dedicated to their profession, or in particular to the Nasty 45 Degree Incident of 1986, for example.

My point is that if your point is that we should honour them for doing their duty, which is what you seemed to suggest in your first post, then why not have a public holiday for every other public service sector? Some of them do a better job and improve our lives a lot more than the military. A public holiday to teachers, nurses, and bus drivers would be a much, much, better idea, and designation for a holiday.

It has nothing to do with "viiewpoints" it has to do with the fact that you are bungling, misrepresenting, or are just completely unaware of the facts.

Like I said, the ANZACs proudly fought for their Regina.

The Nek was commanded by Australians, not Brits.

Turkey declared war on the Allies.

There are not "viewpoints", these are incontrovertible facts.

And this is, in conclusion, why you are wrong.

I have never claimed that these were otherwise. Facts do not come into whether or not it should be a public holiday. It is a simple question of whether or not you want to be subject to a guilt trip for a day, towards all of those who have made the personal decision to join the military. And even those that were forced via conscription would not want a remembrance day tainted by militarism and nationalism, I'm sure. To quote them, "That's not what I fought in <insert battle location> for."

During WWI Australia was part of the Empire. You were a subsidiary of Britain.
We were a quasi-independent, self-governing nation under the rule of the British Monarch. You'll note we have changed very few laws since then, yet now exercise far more control over our own affairs. That's because we chose to do so, not because we were granted the right. We began exercising control over our foreign affairs long before it became legal for us to do so.

Yes, after the Statute of Westminster things were entirely different. The Dominions became partners, rather than subsidiaries. And WWI caused a major push away from Britain in many parts of the Empire.

Your laws said that Britain handled your foreign policy, you try to deal with a major country they would laugh in your face and call up London. And if Britain wanted to they could turn you back into a colony.
We began to handle our own foreign policy before we were legally granted the right. In fact, our first embassy was in Tokyo, and Japan did talk to us, without calling up London. We had consulates in Jakarta and Manila as well, from memory. Also Singapore and Hong Kong, but they're not particularly important, considering they were British anyway.

Britain turn us back into a colony? We already were one - still are - and do you really think Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, et al. would just stand by and allow that? You don't think it would cause outrage throughout the empire if Britain sent a military force to stop us exercising our own foreign affairs?

Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be.
Of course things aren't simple, it's a very complex situation, and I'm looking at it through hindsight. Other people did think as I do at the time, but they weren't in positions of power, and most of them were considered radicals, whackjobs, etc. But there is one simple fact: Australia could have exercised control over its own foreign affairs anytime it wanted. It did in part anyway, such as inviting the Great White Fleet to Sydney in 1904 (year right?). We chose not to. I believe that was a mistake.

I don't care about you, I recognize that some people opposed the war and, especially, serving overseas. Times were completely different though, and without being put into that situation I don't believe you can honestly say, with certainty, what you would have done.
Of course I can't say with all certainty. That's a horsecrap argument. You can't say to someone; 'if you were born a peasant women in fourteenth century France, you would act like a peasant women in fourteenth century France.' If you add the proviso; 'with at least a background generally similar to that which you have now,' which I've provided with the talk about my family, then it changes things somewhat.

My family never supported the war, so it's highly unlikely that, in the same situation, I would. Especially if my personality were similar, with Asperghers and my childhood health problems and all that. Assuming said childhood health problems didn't outright kill me, but that's unlikely. They were never major. I might be unable to father children though.

Seriously, you're comparing our brave Tommies, Poilus and Diggers to the SS? Really?
He's not. You brought up duty, both those groups felt they were doing their duty. That's the only point of confluence between them, and he and I have both said as much.

If you can't then you're either very, very naive, or yo're a "rawr, look how lefty ands angsty and cool I am, and watch me hold my comfortable white middle class liberal pseudo-socialist ideas and appear morally better than you".
You know, I know that it's not your own personal outlook, but that's absolutely hilarious coming from a guy named nonconformist.

Oh, and by the way, yeah, there are some members of the Waffen SS who do deserve to be commemorated, again as misguided people, but as damned decnt soldiers, who gave it all for the wrong cause.
Estonians spring to mind immediately.

Its not a "guilt trip". You choose tro see it as a guilkt trip to better justify your position.
It's merely a day to remember the dead.
I'm sorry to say it, but over here it is used as a guilt trip. How can you do that when men died for you? How can you be a pacifist if men died for you? How can you disagree with any decision, however small, if men died for you? I hear it all the time, both from the media and the general public, not to mention politicians.

I'd just like to say, that I'm pretty incandescent that two people tryigng to act all impassive and angsty and rebellious and such have managed to turn a thread about remembering those who fell in the line of action, to comparing them to the SS perpetrating the Holocaust.

For shame.
You're the only one who's done that nc, with your talk about "duty." The SS analogy, while Godwinning the thread, is an apt one when talking about "duty." They felt they were doing their "duty." It's the only point of confluence, as I said, but it still is one, and it's one you generated with your mention of "duty." I used the SS as an example to point out how stupid that "duty" argument was. Cami and I have been trying to get away from it, but you keep bringing the conversation back around to it.

I'd ask to any mod that this thread be split into two, one about people who have the decency to want to commemorate the day, and one where other can whine about exactly why the Tommies of WWI were morally worse than the SS gassing Jews at Auschwitz.
Because that's exactly what everyone is doing. :rolleyes: Who's creating the strawman now?

Primo, duty isn't why we venerate them, it's because they had the balls to die far away from home which is more than either of you have
secundo, we venerate them, not dance around waving union jacks and crap, and if that's what you think, that's a problem with you, not the ANZACS
Tertio, any comparison to Traffic wardens is grossly insulting, since I'm not aware of any bomb happy traffic wardens, otr mutilated, or who have seen mnay friends wiped out at the blink of an eye.
Any comparison to the SS is just incredibly, incredibly denigrating, insulting, and just purely inflammatory and ignorant., and no matter how many facts anyone has posted all you guys reply with is "yeah, but the SS and the jews..."
Seriously, I'd say you were grasping at straws...but it's much more pathetic than that.

Quarto, bringing usernames into this is retarded, or is Camikaze the dyslexic ghost of a veteran of the Leyte Gulf?


Camikaze, if you're gonna quote something in a history forum, you'd better damn have a source to back it up.

Neither of you have answered any points relating to fact, and are relying on emotional and moralistic arguments, or analogical arguments that have no place within historical method.

If you guys want to be all lefty and cool and crap, then feel free to start a new thread.
Doing it here is pretty much the equivalent of pissing on the Cenotaph.



Oh, and no leftist would ever denigrade the veterans by the way


And as our ship pulled into Circular Quay
I looked at the place where my legs used to be
And thank Christ there was nobody waiting for me
To grieve and to mourn and to pity
And the band played Waltzing Matilda
As they carried us down the gangway
But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared
Then turned all their faces away

This old, necroed thread has gone a long ways off course from its original purpose.

Closed.