The problem I have with Anzac Day is that it doesn’t distinguish between good wars and bad. It was inaugurated by a bad war and virtually all the wars that Anzac Day is used to commemorate were not just or worthy. There were basically Australia currying favour with its big allies by attacking other countries: Turkey, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. These episodes are shameful, and should be an occasion for accusing the criminality of these state actions, not mindlessly praising them.

The Anzacs weren’t defending Australia, or even Britain from unprovoked aggression. Rather, they were the unprovoked aggressors, attacking a country on the other side of the world that had never offered us any harm; as part of Churchill’s hare-brained scheme to attack Germany by way of the Black Sea – how daft is that? Only someone who had no concept of paying any of the costs himself could have proposed it.

The diggers who took on the Japanese at Kokoda were defending us against unprovoked aggression. But that does not justify Anzac Day because again, other greater moral bads eclipse that great moral good.

Anzac Day is also used to propagate the moral falsehood that people are ‘serving their country’, and that participating in mass murder is okay, so long as it’s the state that’s sponsoring the activity for whatever reason it feels like. A classic example is the war in Iraq – remember the WMD fraud? Bush, Howard, Blair – they all belong on the gallows for this enormity.

And as for democracy, since it is the form of government that has plundered its own citizens to fund these unjust wars, and our policy now is endless war on enemies the state hasn’t even bothered to identify, it’s not much of a recommendation, is it?

The whole point of fighting for our freedom from fascists was so we *don’t* have fascist governments. But take a look at mainstream politics in the western world! The orthodoxy on both sides is that government has and should have unlimited power to poke its nose into any and every area of life; that government should control the economy, and since it can’t do it directly without causing social and economic collapse, to do it by permitting, sponsoring, controlling, subsidising and milking private businesses. That’s what fascism *means* folks!

ABC's Q&A program ran a special on last ANZAC Day and it was one of the best programs I have even seen on the subject, especially the responses by General Cosgrove.

Here it is in video or transcript:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2877002.htm

"To conclude, regardless of the importance of Australian wartime stories, we should take seriously claims by Marilyn Lake and others of a “militarisation” of Australian history."
One could take seriously Marilyn Lake's and others claims if they were indeed more than just claims and assertions.
"The narrative of Australian history needs to be broader: telling also of Australian egalitarianism and democracy; and also of the struggle for recognition and justice amongst Australia’s many-varied communities.
The fight against fascism was a crucial one, but we should not harbour illusions about the nature of other conflicts: allowing them to be rationalised behind a veil of nationalism."
These are opinions and assertions but what have they to do with the "militarisation" of history? Who is doing this "militarisation"? Who is rationalising the "nature of other conflicts"? Where is the evidence?
I would have thought committed social scientists would concentrate on providing this evidence to support their claims instead of just making unfounded assertions.

Re: 'militarisation of history': It's a matter of emphasis... That viewing our history mainly through the prism of our past military engagements, is exclusive of other aspects; and when not communicated critically, can result in an uncritical national pride which is blind to complex issues surrounding war.

For instance - the colonial undertones of the Vietnam conflict: and its brutality and cost. Or the strategic dimensions of the Iraq conflict: obscured behind concoctions about WMDs...

The point is that we have a responsibility to retain a critical disposition when it comes to war: where human lives and human suffering are at stake. Supressing critical voices is against the interests of the ordinary people who may one day be the 'fodder' for this or that military conflict.

Criticism is the defence of ordinary people in the face of lies and brutally pragmatic geo-politics.

Tristan, I don't think Lake and Reynold's book goes far enough. I think we participate in wars (and have done since 1885) as part of our ruling elite's need for an umbrella power (the UK and then the US) to protect our own expansionism in the region and our expansion through that power against other competing powers more generally (ie against China now).

Young working class kids pay the price, sometimes with their lives, for that insurance policy of imperialism. As I argue in my article The myth of Anzac Day, (http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7051) the whole point of Anzac Day is to cover up the reality that we workers fight for their (the bosses') profits.