The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Gallipoli good, Vietnam bad > Comments

Gallipoli good, Vietnam bad : Comments

By Sasha Uzunov, published 21/7/2009

Vietnam will remain Australia’s most controversial of wars because of the simple fact it was the first television war.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
The author says
"To call Vietnam immoral would be insulting to Australian Vietnam veterans and the 501 who died there. It would be a slap in the face ... (and so on)"

Nonsense. To criticise the nation's decision to enter the war, whether as a "mistake", "immoral" or whatever, doesn't say anything about the actions of individual soldiers fulfilling their individual roles.

Further, to criticise particular atrocities doesn't say anything about the actions of soldiers other than those involved.

The author gets it right at the end, where he says
"In a democratic society, we should be able to debate national legends and myths and taboo subjects"
Posted by jeremy, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 12:21:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeremy's right. To assert that the Vietnam War was immoral doesn't reflect at all upon the soldiers from both sides who fought in it - except of course if their individual actions or motivations were immoral. I think it's just a tad precious for Sasha Uzunov to claim that calling the Vietnam War immoral would be "insulting to Australian Vietnam veterans".

And I can't let this pass:

<< Don Tate, Vietnam Veteran and author of The War Within, has made explosive claims that his unit was ordered to dispose of the bodies of enemy soldiers killed during Australia’s most controversial war by blowing them up. >>

Well I guess they would be "explosive" claims, wouldn't they?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 3:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to see our defence forces being used for defence and disaster assistance.
Assisting foreign powers in their empire building is *not* a morally justifyable use of weaponry. Blowing civillians to bits is part of the game and so war must be minimised.
Most of hype and fear against the communists is now known to be for propoganda purposes: the equivilent of Iraq's WMDs. Lies are also an inevitable part of warfare.
I believe that almost anything is justified in *defence*, but Haliburton's profits, oil futures and political influence are not reasons to risk civialian life, nor the moral standing of our nation.
As the US has just shown, war is horribly expensive and you cannot always get the losers to pay. You win by buying their companies, not by blowing them to bits. Economic warfare is the best kind, the blood and guts variety is profitable for some, but ultimately it will send you broke.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 3:59:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My opinion, I went , I saw, I done my time, the full 12 months, therefore I belive that I am entitled to comment, if you did not go, listen to those that did! War is, or should be a last resort. South Vietnam asked for help to protect there sovereignty from invasion by the communist north, therefore it was north Vietnam that was in the wrong no contest!

We were answering a call for help from a fallow democratic country that is the right thing to do, the wrong thing in Vietnam was for America and us to pull out and leave south Vietnam in the lurch, "THE WAR WAS WINABLE" even the north Vietnamese laughed at us for pulling out just as we had almost won the war.

The immorality of the Vietnam war was the desertion by America, with them going we had no option but to withdraw, MY OPINION? America was a coward pushed to that point by thier press and communist agitators.

Just as an aside, in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, ect. The Americans fail to back up there men/women, in war mistakes are made, usually by the high command, and or junior officers so why is it that when it hits the fan do the poor sods doing the hard yards, in the line of fire, the mud, the stench, the flies, and the BLOOD and broken bodies, cop the charges and the prison time for obeying orders?

COS THEY ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOTEM POLE.

That is also why we get cheated by governments afterwards, our crime? We servived and came home!
Posted by oggy, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 4:00:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a confused irrational rant.

Our involvement in the Vietnam exercise (hard to call it a 'war', given the absence of any precise enemy or objectives) was immoral because it caused enormous death and suffering to human beings, including but not limited to our own soldiers and their families, which continues to this day. Inflicting death and suffering on others is always immoral unless justified by a sufficient moral purpose. There was no such moral purpose in Vietnam and vague references to it helping win the Cold War are desperate argument by assertion, lacking both evidence and moral reasoning.

The morality or otherwise of war is not determined by the conduct of the soldiers who fight it; that is an entirely separate issue. Indeed I doubt that the author of the post has any real understanding of the concept of morality or moral reasoning at all.
Posted by Ken_L, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 4:39:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ridiculous article, for the reasons everyone is pointing out.

by the way, it's news to me that world war 1 was a good war: i always thought it was one bunch of imperial assholes fighting another bunch of imperial assholes, with millions of innocents caught in the middle. what i like about the anzac business is it emphasises the futility and the horror, and then the mateship amidst the futility and the horror. one can be proud of the anzac tradition and still think it was based on a bloody stupid war.

oggy, i am glad you came back, i appreciate you risked your neck for what you think was a good cause. but your risking your neck doesn't give you any particular insight to the reasons why politicians decided to go to viet nam, or why they decided to get out, or whether either decision was wise.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 5:02:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australian involvement in WWI was justified by the fact that Australia would have been deleteriously affected by a Central Powers victory: our reliance on Britain at that point was such that a British defeat would have severely damaged our economy, if not our political freedom.

The war in Vietnam, like the wars in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, had no conceivable relevance to the safety or prosperity of the people of Australia, and using Australian taxpayers' money to prosecute those wars was and is political chicanery of the highest order.

The Australian government has only one moral obligation: to protect and serve the best interests of its citizens. Our involvement in World Wars I and II was completely justified, although of course there were mistakes of policy and judgment in its execution. Our involvement in land wars in Asia and the Middle East has never been remotely justified by any real threat to Australian interests.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 5:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher

I reckon oggy would know better than you:
Simply because you seem to have an attitude that because he doesn't see things the way you do he might not have the ability to think about vietnam as clearly as yourself.

And what your ilk forget is that the other nations of SE Asia greatly appreciated the efforts of people like oggy because they like us at the time saw the communist threat from the north as very real.

Mate many of our best relationships in Asia are with countries who understood how they benefited from the exhaustion of North Vietnam as a military power.

History won't be written by the media it'll be written by historians who don't pander to any particular political hue.

Thanks oggy
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 6:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith, grow up. oggy may well know better than me: i never claimed otherwise. but his having served in vietnam is not an argument for that, and he seemed to be claiming it was.

the thing that your ilk don't get is that people are not part of an "ilk".
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 7:04:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a sign of desperation when someone quotes Gerard Henderson as a justification for the righteousness of the Vietnam war.
How ridiculous to apply this simplistic good/bad binary analysis to Gallipoli and Vietnam.
The Vietnam war remains a totally immoral war whether it be its impetus via the totally fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident to the pathetic attempt to portray the corrupt and despicable Diem regime as a democratic outpost in SE Asia.
It does not follow that to argue that Vietnam was an immoral war automatically places each previous war in the "good" column.
WW1 was an equally immoral war in its own way. And like the troops in Vietnam the diggers in the trenches were victims of decisions made at a distance and based upon colonial and strategic priorities of European powers.
So please spare us this specious argument.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 9:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting that so many of you here condemn the Vietnam war. My understanding is the US (and hence ultimately us) went to war because of the domino theory. We believed if Vietnam fell to communism, then so would most of Asia. Given the way communists seemed to attack their neighbours and their own peoples it was a genuine worry.

In hindsight, it was just rampant paranoia of course. It seems the Americans didn't have as much faith in the capitalist system as they made out. Who would of thought such destruction could arise from American under confidence? Indeed who would have thought there was such a thing as American under confidence?

Anyway, apparently such a thing did exist, and they went to war because they saw a genuine threat. They were the days - when the Americans when to war because of a genuine threat. Right now they have occupied a country for the better part of a decade and I am buggered if I know why. Vietnam seems a just war in comparison.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 21 July 2009 10:37:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The essential difference between Australia's involvement in WW1 and WW2 and Vietnam was that Australia's involvement in WW1 and WW2 had overwhelming public support while support for Australia's involvement in Vietnam split the nation.
Australians went to war in 1914 to support their uncles and nephews and cousins and second cousins fighting for Great Britain. Australia was part of the British Empire with a common culture. A part of this culture was an admiration for military ideals.
The arguments for Australia's entry into World War 2 were similar but the prospect of the destruction of our democratic values and freedoms if the Axis powers were to win loomed much higher in the public mind.
Australia's entry into Vietnam lacked many of the circumstances accompanying our entry into WW2. There was no obvious direct threat to our political and economic wellbeing as a nation. The British Empire had largely vanished; Britain had been replaced by the USA as our number one ally. Indeed the UK did not send troops to Vietnam. There was a much greater discussion in the media including TV about the pros and cons of our entry into the war.
Australia's involvement in Vietnam was no more or no less moral than its involvement in the first two World Wars. The three wars differed only in their level of popular support which had very little to do with morality.
Posted by blairbar, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 9:50:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ive never read such rubbish.
I'm sick and tired of comparisons between conflicts the Australian Defence Force has been involved in.
Who cares if the war was morally right or not. Our men and women of the defence force fulfilled the obligations of thy governments bidding at the time. Get with the program people and stop knocking those past and present members of the defence force that have served or are currently serving in a war zone. Politicians decide on which war our defence force will fight if people dont like that then take the matter up with the government stop blaming those that have served or that are seving. The ANZAC tradition was about an entire nation supporting its veterans, unfortunately since the Korean war to present day there is an unthinkable but very obvious despicable display of an ungrateful nation.
As for Don Tate, please take another happy pill mate we know you were in a combat zone and so were many others and decisions right or wrong were made at the time so be it. Grind your axe for use against the government not your fellow veterans.
Posted by amazed, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 11:30:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Who cares if the war was morally right or not."

Good on you amazed, you've managed to express the moral bankruptcy of so many Australians most pungently.

Who cares about things like morality when we can ignore it and cheer Our Brave Diggers instead?

Nauseating.

Rstuart you write as if the domino theory was universally accepted wisdom. On the contrary, lots of us didn't require hindsight to see it for the paranoia you correctly say it was. We said so at the time, frequently and loudly, and were vilified as commies for our pains. These days we are vilified as terrorism supporters because we opposed the invasion of Iraq. Nothing changes except the labels; fearful ignorant people continue to see imaginary threats everywhere that require us to retaliate first, preferably with lots of things that go bang. And as amazed argued so eloquently, who cares if it's morally right or wrong? The point is it makes them feel good.
Posted by Ken_L, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:11:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone that has fought in a war will tell you it is bad. To try and justify world political failure by grading wars is not helpful in any way. War of any sort is definately bad and should be avoided where possible.
We have many reasons why we went to war given to us,, but basically I think it comes down to population control in many instances. With the world population at 2½ billion in 1950, and now we are nearly at 7 billion,,, I wonder how long we have got till there is another population control adjustment?
Posted by NiftyOne, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:14:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘… who is the person who decides which war is “good” and which war is “bad”…?’

When it comes to Vietnam, that question cannot be answered without a history lesson…

Vietnam has had a 4000 year history of rich and stable independence punctuated by foreign invasion, occupation and finally expulsion by organised peasant resistance – two of its most heroic resistance leaders being the sisters Trung Trac and Trung Nhi.

A succession of dynasties have ruled Vietnam, some of which (like the Li) were extremely progressive socially, even by today’s standards. By the end of the 18th century, another peasant uprising united the three Indo-Chinese kingdoms but, unfortunately, the early death of the amazing peasant leader Nguyen Hue in 1792 made it vulnerable to French conquest.

The Vietnamese fought against French rule for 150 years. At the end of WWI, Ho Chi Minh led a delegation to Versailles to plead for independence. The very nations who had just fought a war that claimed 19 million lives in the cause of the ‘rights of small nations’ refused to even speak to them. Again in 1945, after Ho’s military organisation, the Vietminh, had spent the war resisting the Japanese, Vietnam’s pleas for independence were again refused an audience by the West.

After the Vietminh defeated the French in 1954, the Geneva peace conference called for a temporary division of the country, with elections to be held in 1956. As an 80% election victory for Ho Chi Minh was predicted (by President Eisenhower no less), the elections were never held.

Contrary to Western mythology, the Vietcong were NOT the North Vietnamese Army. They were South Vietnamese nationalist freedom fighters, fighting the West to force a reversal of its broken promise to allow a democratically elected government to rule a united Vietnam. Mainly made up of a tenacious and well-organised peasantry, they were following an ancient and proud Vietnamese tradition.

So … as for the question ‘… who is the person who decides which war is “good” and which war is “bad”?’

There is NO SUCH person. The only decider is history.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Blairbar] ‘The essential difference between Australia's involvement in WW1 and WW2 and Vietnam was that Australia's involvement in WW1 and WW2 had overwhelming public support …’

[Amazed] ‘The ANZAC tradition was about an entire nation supporting its veterans …’

This is mainly true of WW2, because there was a real and direct threat, but not WWI. The truth about WWI is that the nation was deeply divided over our involvement.

The two defeated conscription referendums in 1916 and 1917 only scratched the surface of the heated tensions over Australia’s involvement in what was perceived by many as a superpower rivalry struggle on the other side of the world. The tensions went all the way to the top, with the ALP splitting over the issue.

Also, the very pro-active WWI peace movement - drawing up to 100,000-strong crowds to its public rallies - was considered such a threat by the Hughes government that draconian censorship laws were passed, forbidding any form of anti-war sentiment to be published or spoken publicly – even songs like ‘I didn’t raise my son to be a soldier’ were banned. Raids, jailings and deportations of peace activists and anti-conscription campaigners were commonplace.

This reprehensible episode in the nation's history is one of the great (deliberately) untold stories of WWI. Instead, the Anzac myth of overwhelming Australian support has been regurgitated by the history syllabuses, political spin doctors and media editors-in-chief of every generation since
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 12:58:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF. Thanks for the enlightenment. Yes I have seen the comparison between the WW1 Diggers and Vietnam Diggers on a couple of occasions. Ben Avi tells one very nicely about a WW1 motorbike rider telling him of how they were similarly treated after their war.
To those that never served in war, I am sorry, but you do not, and never will understand the Veteran. It is a sad fact but very true.
Posted by NiftyOne, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 1:52:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"WWI peace movement - drawing up to 100,000-strong crowds to its public rallies"
Dear SJF please provide some evidence of this.
What WW1 did result in was a further split between Roman Catholic and Protestant Australians which lasted until the 60s. It related of course to the question of Irish independence. The nation was indeed divided over conscription but that was only an issue later during the war. The enlisted diggers treated their non-enlisted brothers with contempt but even they did not wish their brothers to be forced to endure the horrors of the Western Front.
If you want evidence of the overwhelming support for WW1 which was reflected in voluntary enlistments in the AIF just go to the Australian Archives site and have a look. And more sadly have a drive around rural Australia and look at the war memorials.
Posted by blairbar, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 2:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,

You're an arrogant s...head.

Why did you abuse me? Simply because I challenged the imputations your comments contained?

Yes you imputed that because you hadn't served in Vietnam you had a greater probability of corretly judging Australians involvement there.

Logic, mate logic when applied to your condesending remarks to oggy show just that.

If ever you dared talk to me in such a damnable condescending manner face to face I'd knock your bloody block off. But here you can hide behind petticoats and fake names ... so you're safe you c.....!

And you need to read oggy's remarks a damn lot better than you have. In your haste to condemn decency and justify your own beliefs and probable disgraceful past behaviours you simply didn't bloody listen to what oggy said!
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 5:28:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh, OLO just gets classier and classier.

I doubt I'll be back Graham.
Posted by Ken_L, Wednesday, 22 July 2009 6:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blairbar

The main source for WWI anti-war/conscription rally numbers is ‘The Wobblies at War’ by Frank Cain (1993). The active anti-conscription movement was driven by 3 major forces – the Irish Catholic population, the international labour movement and the Women’s Peace Army, all of which drew crowds in the 10s of 1000s to their rallies.

Also, the prolific presence of WWI memorials around the countryside is not an accurate measure of the level of support for the troops in WWI. Rather, they indicate the post-war political and financial clout of the RSL and the determination by post-war Australian governments to expunge virtually all traces of the anti-war movement and conscription defeats from the nation’s official WWI history.

The best indicator of the population’s real support for the troops was the defeat of the two conscription referendums in 1916-7 despite the anti-conscription case being almost completely gagged by the War Precautions Act.

Nifty

To those that never served in war, I am sorry, but you do not, and never will understand the Veteran. It is a sad fact but very true.’

This might come as a shock to you, but there are those of us who really couldn’t care less about whether or not the veteran is ‘understood’. Stripped of the beatific, canonising aura that surrounds them, the war veterans’ sense of ‘specialness’ is just another form of smug elitism.

Keith

Thank you for that insight into the noble warrior mentality. Is that your attitude to any COUNTRY that offends you as well?
Posted by SJF, Thursday, 23 July 2009 3:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ken_L

Mate if you were fair dinkim you'd have raised objections about Bushbashers arrogant condescending attitude to oggy and his initial abuse of me.

You didn't! Why wait until after I responded?

Is it that you think the word less powerful, effective or frightening than a likely totally ineffectual punch on the nose!

Writers from the ages would be laughing at you!

SJF,

I am a pacifist but my Irish gets up and I tend to lose my composure with behaviours and speech that demean anybody, especially when I see the victims as people speaking from their heart. I'm a great sinner. Fortunately for everybody I'm quite unskilled as a pugilist, now very slight of build and have of late found a great gentleness in life. My comment was a throw back to my past... and geneology. I withdraw and apologise for the threat of violence. But stand by my charges of abuse and arrogant condescension by the cowardly Bushbasher.

SJF countries rarely speak let alone demean others ... sadly it's people who do.

My experience confirmes by anecdote the details of your research on anti-conscription. My Irish Catholic Grandfather was jailed for bashing horse-riding 'Special Constables' bought in especially to quell the growing demonstrations against conscription in NZ during WW1.
He simply believed the war was a European war and shouldn't have involved he and his family and friends. He was no pacifist.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 23 July 2009 5:16:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF, Yup, I should have put a little more to the quote there."To those that never served in war, I am sorry, but you do not, and never will understand the Veteran. It is a sad fact but very true.’"
I was not trying to be elitist here at all. I should have added "Thankfully you will never know" Most of us try to absorb the death and destruction of war and hope that the least amount of people suffer it. It changes you, and you do not,, in most case's anyway, become elitist in any way, quite the reverse. We do get a little uppity of occasions when we go to pay respects to fallen mates, or when someone tries to offend their sacrafice... You will have to accept that.
For you knowledge, I did serve in Vietnam, and with an Infantry Battalion and seen too much combat. That info is not trying to garnish any respect or denigration, just so you know my background.
Posted by NiftyOne, Thursday, 23 July 2009 5:22:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
keith,

*) nothing i wrote comes close to warranting your over the top reaction.

*) i wasn't for a minute trying to be disrespectful to or condescending to oggy. i was disrespectful to you, because i do not appreciate being characterised, and gratuitously, as one of a type, one of an ilk.

*) i genuinely admire the courage, and largely the spirit, of those who go to war, and i sympathise with them. i agree with those who say that i cannot know what it is like. i know i cannot. veterans know about the horrors of war the way few others in australia can.

*) but that does not grant veterans a special status to declare the purpose or the morality of a war. oggy is entitled to his opinion, and i never for a minute suggested otherwise. but his being a veteran does not make his opinion more valid. it also doesn't make it less valid: i never claimed or implied this.

there is a common political trick, to characterise those who are against a war as actually being "against the troops" fighting that war. sometimes it's honest confusion of the two, and one of the troubles with the original article is that confusion. but more often than not, it's a deliberate political ploy. and commonly, veterans and soldiers are paraded to support a war, so that to object to what the soldier says is easily interpreted as an attack on the soldier.

i wasn't attacking oggy, merely the presumption that his opinion on the politics of vietnam war had some predetermined weight. that's it.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 23 July 2009 6:04:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought keith's reaction was way OTT too - in fact, I figured he'd been imbibing a bit too much when he let fly at bushbasher. While he's rescinded somewhat, his reaction to bushbasher's quite reasonable comment remains grossly overstated, and deserves an apology.

Given that keith quite often posts in a similarly intemperate style, I'm quite surprised to hear him claim to be a pacifist.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 23 July 2009 6:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cj

It's you who drinks ... remember

bb

yeah yeah whatever
Posted by keith, Thursday, 23 July 2009 6:38:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1."WWI peace movement - drawing up to 100,000-strong crowds to its public rallies"
Dear SJF please provide some evidence of this.
Response:"the main source for WWI anti-war/conscription rally numbers is ‘The Wobblies at War’ by Frank Cain (1993)....The active anti-conscription movement"
Evidence for the peace movement become anti-war/anti conscription rally numbers which then become evidence of the anti-conscription numbers. Nowhere did I deny strong opposition to conscription, but the call for conscription resulted from the horrific casualty numbers suffered by Australian volunteers in 1915 and 1916 and the perceived need for replacement(Australia was the only Allied nation to have a volunteer army which incidentally was the best paid). The two failed plebiscites were held at the end of 1916 and 1917.
2."Also, the prolific presence of WWI memorials around the countryside is not an accurate measure of the level of support for the troops in WWI. Rather, they indicate the post-war political and financial clout of the RSL and the determination by post-war Australian governments to expunge virtually all traces of the anti-war movement"
I was not referring to the number of memorials but to the numbers of WW1 dead whose names were recorded on the memorials. These were volunteers who showed their support for the War .
3.Some Australian Statistics
First World War 4/8/1914 -- 11/11/1918
416,809 enlisted AIF (includes AFC) -- 13.43 percent of the white male population and probably about half the eligible men.
331,000 enlisted and served overseas
61,720 died (all causes)
155,000 wounded (all services)
4,044 taken POW, 397 died while captive.
4. Some other figures
"By the end of World War I almost 1 in 4 of the total male population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had joined, over five million men."
Of these approximately 2 million were conscripts; thus the UK volunteers were approximately 15 percent of the total male population, a similar figure to Australia's volunteer level.
Posted by blairbar, Thursday, 23 July 2009 7:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People, you are arguing about war history here, the first casualty of war is truth. It has only been in the last couple of years that we have learned that the Japanese bombed Darwin. It was not once, but many times, also Broome and other towns were bombed too. HMAS Sydney files still have not been released either. You will only find the truth from those that were there, and WW1 blokes are not talking anymore. History of it has been changed to suit the political landscape since. The Vietnamese Vets are still here,, well some of us, and no one wants to listen to us either, God forbid the truth might come out if someone actually listened.
But then again, you put 3 Vietnam Veterans in a room and you will have 5 different arguments and 10 different opinions instantly. Self included. And I still believe in the domino theory to this day, no one has proven it wrong,,,,, or right!
Posted by NiftyOne, Thursday, 23 July 2009 8:40:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blairbar

I took issue with your use of the words ‘overwhelming public support’ for the war. To me, a war in which 62% (almost 2-thirds) of eligible men did NOT enlist does not constitute overwhelming public support.

Also, if the support was ‘overwhelming’, why the need for the War Precautions Act? Why the jailings and deportations? Why the banning of anti-war and anti-conscription material? Why the white feather brigades? Why the recruitment marches? Why was the Queensland Government Printing Office (the only state government openly opposed to conscription) shut down and placed under military guard?

These are not the actions of a government whose involvement in a war has ‘overwhelming public support’.

bushbasher

'... there is a common political trick, to characterise those who are against a war as actually being "against the troops" fighting that war.'

Yes, there is. But why should anyone feel shame for being 'against the troops'? For reasons that continue to escape me, holding troops to account for the horrors of the wars they willingly participate in is perceived as the ultimate in immorality.

Yet the main reason that politicians keep declaring wars is because they know there is always a ready supply of morally naive, eager young warriors to fight them.
Posted by SJF, Friday, 24 July 2009 2:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF you are an idiot.

Do us a favour and stop contributing to global warming.

Its unfortunate that there are ungrateful oxygen thieves such as yourself strutting around Australia. Your able to steal our oxygen due to those special individuals that volunteer their services to the ADF to protect this nation from potential threat or harm.

Servicemen and women are acknowledged last in the order of march after the self proclaimed elite highly paid well cared for sporting heroes and parliamentarians of this nation.

Go and throw on some boots and grab a rifle and find out for yourself what war is all about instead of boring us all with your naive highly unintelligent comments.

Servicemen and women past and present are the elite heroes of this nation and many will never have the chance to defend themselves against oxygen thieves such as yourself.

One day the enemy may very well end up on our doorstep and we shall see where your morals on warfare stand.

Individuals such as myself will need to weigh up the options as to which side is going to cause me the least amount of harm as I'm sick of garbage such as yourself fluttering around Australia. Similar to making a voting decision.

For your personal benefit Pte Benjamin Ranaudo another one of our HEROES from the ADF was killed in Afghanistan the other day.

RIP MATE, Like those that have fallen before you you will never be forgotten.

Duty First
Posted by amazed, Friday, 24 July 2009 5:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I took issue with your use of the words ‘overwhelming public support’ for the war. To me, a war in which 62% (almost 2-thirds) of eligible men did NOT enlist does not constitute overwhelming public support".
Where did this figure come from? The figure was that bout half of Australian eligible men did not enlist.
Name me one war where over half of eligible men voluntarily enlisted.
Has it ocurred to you that maybe there were men engaged in important non-war related activities eg farming?
"Why was the Queensland Government Printing Office (the only state government openly opposed to conscription) shut down and placed under military guard?"
Because they were opposed to conscription.
"Yet the main reason that politicians keep declaring wars is because they know there is always a ready supply of morally naive, eager young warriors to fight them."
Yes SJF blame it on the warriors ...not your failure to convince the Australian electorate to pursue an alternative course. You are just p...in the wind. Condemn my father and my late uncles who served in WW2 as morally naive, eager young warriors. Who cares they are all dead.
Posted by blairbar, Friday, 24 July 2009 6:59:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazed,

i thought i was listening to Colonel Jessup:

You can't handle the truth! I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand to post.

We all know what heppened to him.
Posted by barney25, Saturday, 25 July 2009 7:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
barney25: Colonel Jessup? More like Lieutenant Parmenter, I reckon.

Not a good look for the ADF.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 25 July 2009 8:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
blairbar

I'm not sure where you got your enlistment statistics from, but I got mine from the Australian War Memorial site, which is collaborated by the Anzac Day site.

AWM: '416, 809 Australians enlisted for service in the First World War, representing 38.7% of the total male population aged between 18 to 44.'
http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/enlistment/ww1.asp

‘Yes SJF blame it on the warriors ...not your failure to convince the Australian electorate to pursue an alternative course.’

The Australian electorate has a history of opposing the particularly imperial brand of warfare Australia engages in (from the Boer War to Iraq), and successive war governments have a corresponding history of ignoring its wishes and gagging its protests. This is why we have to have an Anzac tradition, to create a network of romantic lies about soldiers defending our freedoms while depriving other countries of theirs.

About your dad … I believe the Pacific theatre of WWII is the only war Australia has fought in its 220-year history that actually had a sound practical and moral basis to it. I’m not a pacifist. I’m just particular about the wars we fight - especially as the mother of two sons.
Posted by SJF, Sunday, 26 July 2009 10:03:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SJF
1."I'm not sure where you got your enlistment statistics from, but I got mine from the Australian War Memorial site, which is collaborated by the Anzac Day site.
AWM: '416, 809 Australians enlisted for service in the First World War, representing 38.7% of the total male population aged between 18 to 44."
My source: http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww1/anecdotes/stats01.html
No difference in numbers really; just a different age grouping for eligible males.
2."The Australian electorate has a history of opposing the particularly imperial brand of warfare". Can you provide one example, SJF, of a government in Australia supporting a particular war being voted out and replaced by a new government opposing the war?
3.My dad was in the RAAF and served in the UK and Iceland. His bother was a Rat of Tobruk and later served in the Pacific theatre. My mum's brother was a prisoner on the Burma-Thailand death railway. Silly "morally naive, eager young warriors". They were all members of the RSL, strong believers in the Anzac tradition and helped, no doubt,"to create a network of romantic lies about soldiers defending our freedoms."
Posted by blairbar, Sunday, 26 July 2009 11:40:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm very surprised that in all these posts there has been no mention of American imperialism.
I was just a couple of years too young to be personally involved in Vietnam, but I do vividly remember the teachings of my very pacifistic modern history teacher. Rightly or wrongly, the message was that America was not even slightly interested in Democracy in Vietnam, after all as SJF mentions, Eisenhower himself admitted Ho Chi Minh had the support of about 80% of the population.
America -then and now- fought for Capitalism, and to hell with national sovereignty. Diem was a dedicated asshole, and the yanks knew it.
At least in WW2, the Nazis and the Japanese at that time, were genuinely hateable savages, egregiously inhumane, so there was some moral justification for war.
I mean no disrespect to any diggers from any war; I have been proud to call mates several vets from Nam and from WW2.
None of them were too fussed on war, either.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 26 July 2009 12:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim
My friend can you tell me your state? Do you remember your advise for democrats? I did! I want you more active arount there! You are good with litle bit strange ideas for a democrat but you are good!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Sunday, 26 July 2009 8:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
blairbar

‘Can you provide one example, SJF, of a government in Australia supporting a particular war being voted out and replaced by a new government opposing the war?’

Ahhh. Trick question!

Of course I can’t provide ‘one example’ of what you ask … for the simple reason that there has never been a time when the Australian electorate had a CHOICE between a government that supported a particular war and an opposition that didn’t.

There has never been a time when both the government and oppostion has been at odds about our involvement in a war. The Australian political establishment does not directly rely on the electorate for its survival. It relies on the media and big business to endorse its policies in the eyes of the electorate. If any government or opposition ever dared to oppose a war, especially on moral grounds, it would be hung out to dry.

Also, like you, I have the usual quota of war dead and injured in my family as well. The difference is that I don’t collapse in a moral-crisis heap at the thought that the hell they went through was not for the sake of a morally just cause.

Grim

‘I'm very surprised that in all these posts there has been no mention of American imperialism.’

I can’t speak for anyone else here, but the reason I don’t focus on American imperialism is because it doesn’t differ from any other form of imperialism. We’ve had thousands of years of empires raping and pillaging perfectly good cultures, and leaving a highly unstable political vacuum in their wake, either because these cultures have resources the empire needs or because they are strategically in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In this respect, Vietnam and the Transvaal are no different from Afghanistan or Iraq.
Posted by SJF, Sunday, 26 July 2009 8:46:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Time for me to finish my contribution to this thread.
"There has never been a time when both the government and oppostion has been at odds about our involvement in a war." I wonder why.
"If any government or opposition ever dared to oppose a war, especially on moral grounds, it would be hung out to dry." By whom?
I am sorry but for all its flaws I prefer governments in this country to be formed via the ballot box and reformed according to the democratic process. The fact is that the electorate in this country through their elected members had opportunities to withdraw our involvement in numerous wars but never did.
"The difference is that I don’t collapse in a moral-crisis heap at the thought that the hell they went through was not for the sake of a morally just cause."
Those persons who voluntarily enlisted acted on the basis of their moral beliefs. I have not made any comments re the morality or immorality of Australia's involvement in its various wars. I have merely commented on the different levels of popular support.
Posted by blairbar, Monday, 27 July 2009 5:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BARNEY MORGAN or is it FRANCIS the typing MULES thanks for the suggestions.

Well i picked one up a couple of times, weighed approx 4kg and was backed up by 30 amazing olympic sprinting heroes. Our elite sporting heroes have nothing on these little warriors. It certainly adds a whole new meaning to the 100 metre sprint.

I must say i pledged allegiance to the queen once and that pledge made no mention about oxymorons and mules.

Now morgan or should i say FRANCIS in your short sighted eyes what constitutes a good look for the ADF. I would be very interested to know after reading so many pathetic unintelligent posts.

SJF you stated "This is why we have to have an Anzac tradition, to create a network of romantic lies about soldiers defending our freedoms while depriving other countries of theirs."

Its clearly obvious you dont know s@#t from clay as to the roll our ADF is currently playing around the world. Our ADF doesnt just go and fight wars it conducts humanitarian work within the war zones with their hands tied behind their backs. They win the hearts and minds of the people.
The members of the ADF have time and time again won the battles, have won the hearts and minds of the people to have lost all their blood sweat and tears to the gutless politicians that run away with their tales between their legs. Then they return to read and listen to rubbish from individuals such as yourself.

Could you historians please do us all a favour and learn to read or at least have someone read the book to you.

I would have to agree with Blairbar and it appears we have both come to the same conclusion that its impossible to educate an idiot.

A soldiers five.

Duty First
Posted by amazed, Monday, 27 July 2009 9:53:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the really disappointing things about OLO is the way it attracts people who wear as a badge of courage their inability to put a coherent argument together in a form of words which make sense.
I'm sure that there was a point in that rant AMAZED but it was lost on me.
Posted by shal, Monday, 27 July 2009 10:27:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazed, you are a grunt. A brother in arms. Do I read a Tiger too??
Posted by NiftyOne, Monday, 27 July 2009 11:54:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Given that keith quite often posts in a similarly intemperate style, I'm quite surprised to hear him claim to be a pacifist <<

He's also an enthusiastic supporter of George W. Bush and the religious/resource war in Iraq. I suspect Keith calls himself a pacifist for the same reason Philip Ruddock wears an Amnesty International badge.

I see a lot of these in this discussion: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/centurion.htm
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 27 July 2009 12:56:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just in case blairbar is still lurking …

‘The fact is that the electorate in this country through their elected members had opportunities to withdraw our involvement in numerous wars but never did.’

Except for Vietnam and Iraq, and by the look of things, a withdrawal from Afghanistan is only a matter of time, as opinion polls show that support has now dropped from majority to borderline support. And you may have heard me mention WWI :) – which is a classic case of the electorate reducing our war involvement through the ballot box … twice … and in doing so, saved arguably 10s of thousands of young Australian men’s lives.

Unlike in WWI, the people’s opposition to Iraq and Vietnam could not be completely gagged, censored, criminalised and expunged from the official Australian narrative. However, the revisionist propaganda machine is certainly trying very hard – as with this essay.

amazed

You are a true son of Australia. It's makes me all goose bumpy to know that the many millions spent on Anzac propaganda over the last century has found such a receptive mind.
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 9:23:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Just in case blairbar is still lurking"
Just grow up SJF.
Posted by blairbar, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 2:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
blairbar

'"Just in case blairbar is still lurking"
Just grow up SJF.'

So you WERE lurking.
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 2:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy