Great article! The Anzac Spirit promotes future wars. I worship no God and am glad that Peter Sellick does not worship the one worshiped at the Anzac day ceremony.

From "The Australian Peace Movement" by Malcolm Saunders and Ralph Summy:

"...a few prominent individuals spoke against offering Britain even moral support [for the Crimean War]. One such person was the Reverend Dr. John Dunmore Lang, the well-known Presbyterian minister of Sydney, who argued that the Australian colonies should take advantage of their geographical isolation from the troublespots of the world and declare their neutrality. Otherwise - so he claimed - the colonies would automatically be dragged into every conflict that involved Britain and another European power."

Some opposed Australian participation in WW1. From "The Australian Peace Movement":

"The unofficial leader of the left wing of the federal Labor party – which had won the federal elections in 1914 - was Frank Anstey, who denounced the war as a product of the machinations of capitalists and warned that the workers would inevitably suffer most.”

If the Reverend Lang and Frank Anstey had been heeded there would have no Australian participation in the Crimean War or WW1. It would be useful to remember them and others who advised against Australian involvement in war. Wouldn't it be good if there had been no Australians at Gallipoli?

In my opinion with the exception of WW2 Australia could have avoided participation in all its many wars and be better off for it.

I am one of the many who demonstrated against Australian involvement in Iraq. We were ignored by the criminals Bush, Blair and Howard who wanted their war and got it.

Thoughtful article, asking whether the self-sacrifice in war is to be compared with that of Christ. Whatever your answer, the fact is that the parallel was often drawn, as is evidenced by the inscription on many war graves at Gallipoli and elsewhere—greater love hath no man than this: to lay down his life for another. Clearly this thought offered comfort to the survivors.
For me a great question is: how to honour the dead—and the survivors—without aiding and abetting the government of the day in its promotion of and recruitment for the next war, and the next and the next? I imagine the dead being unenthusiastic about the glory we give them, because they don't want the youth of the next generation to be manipulated into joining up.

Nice work, Peter. Regarding Honest History, note that we try to avoid being seen as players in a new bout of the History Wars. Instead, we pursue the theme of not only Anzac but also lots of other threads of Australian history. In other words, Anzac is important not so much because of what Australians do in war but because of what war does to Australia and Australians. The content of our website reflects this: lots of stuff on Anzac and war but lots also on other parts of our history. There are a few items relevant to Peter's piece, including a nice article by Doug Hynd on whether it is appropriate for Christian pastors to be involved in Anzac ceremonies: http://honesthistory.net.au/wp/hynd-doug-anzac-day-reflections/ Father Paul Collins has also made the point about the Anzac longing arising from a desire for liturgy.

To die for the Japanese Emperor, who the ordinary Japanese thought was a God, is no different to die for King and Country, I can understand Country but not King,this being the enticement for young men to die in WW1, after all, Emperor or King, ones life is far more precious than to die for a man made title, which means nothing.

War commemoration is always ambiguous, even contradictory. As well as remembering the courage and achievements of those who died, we must also recall the brutality and often futility of war, and its human consequences that can last for decades. We need to hold both in focus simultaneously, and it is difficult.

ANZAC, in particular, is complex because it is both myth and history. Groups like Honest History are a necessary corrective to the simplification and sentimentalisation of the ANZAC story. Objective historians doubtless say that this was an inconsequential and unsuccessful military campaign in which we held the moral low ground (invading Turkey). The deaths and suffering, appalling though they were, did not compare to what came later on the Western and Eastern fronts. The contributions of the ANZACs was not especially notable, nor was their suffering (the defending Turks endured far greater hardships and casualty rates).

But, Sells of all people should know that the meaning of a story cannot always be reduced to its historical facts. The ANZAC myth has its roots in the events on Gallipoli but it is more than that, a projection of idealised Australian values. The fact that these are not uniquely Australian (most cultures value resilience, mateship, ingenuity and humour) nor historically absolute (there were probably as many scared and cowardly young men in Australia’s trenches as the others) doesn’t detract from the fact that the ANZAC story tells us something about how we imagine ourselves at our best, and worst. In this sense, the comparison (not equivalence) with scripture and especially the death of Jesus has validity.

In WW1 some of the war poets used biblical stories and analogies to expose the horrors of war – Wilfred Owen in particular. At a Calvary Near The Ancre, the bitter parody of Parable of the Old Men and the Young, and the liturgical themes of Anthem for Doomed Youth remain very powerful because of these religious allusions.

http://www.rjgeib.com/heroes/owen/owen-poetry.html

Agree mostly with Rhian.
I thought the Gallipoli campaign was a dogs breakfast from start to finish. And just wasted lives on all sides; and for what?
So some drink sodden politicians can raise a glass to sacrifice, always someone else's, and bask in the glory, or the courage of dead men.

Many who may well have charged the guns in order to end the madness and the murder that is war.

I prefer the book written by a returned soldier, "A fortunate life", by A.B. Facey.
Which gives a first hand account of the war; and from the front line, by a serving Australian soldier!
Rather than the heavily politicized example as served up by the Author, as a example seen through the prism of madness/anti soldier/anti war/soldier's son!

The Burma railway wasn't war, just man on man brutality, and carried out by brutal sub humans, with no saving graces whatsoever.
And Doctors like weary Dunlop, showed their mettle and courage in the face of this extraordinary obscenity!
I always find the dawn service at Gallipoli very moving, and am brought to tears every time I see the lines upon lines of grave markers.

Even so, I believe we should pay some,[least we forget,] homage to these men, who sacrificed all so we could enjoy the freedom we have today!
None more so, than those civilian soldiers who fought as bravely as anyone could, and not for king and country, but rather for their mates, wives, lovers, family and friends; on the Kakoda track!

That's the real motivation of just about all soldiers, even those soiling their shorts in very fear, yet still stood tall, when it counted!

I see no honor in useless sacrifice, and even less, when it comes to rank brutality; and even less, when hundreds of thousands of lives are wasted, in a no result police action!
If troops are to be committed, they need to go in remove the threat for once and for all; and ultimately, at far less cost of men and material.
Rhrosty