Although Bruce Haig gets some things right, his slanted hard-left views make his commentary too distorted to be of much benefit.. Note his frequent reference to "right wing" historians which, I suspect, means everyone but him.. you'll note he carefully leaves out the per-capita and per active combatant death toll.
And there was this howler "No nation was ever built as a result of war." But what about the American Revolutionary war, and the Greek and Italian wars of independence, just for starters?
Anzac day and Rememberence day should be seen as commemorating Australia coming out as a nation - rather than nation building as such.. a focus.

"No nation was ever built as a result of war," says Bruce.

Someone should tell the Yanks this. They appear to think that war waged right across the world will eventually bring them the trophy of world domination.

What it will bring them is desolation and death on a scale beyond human comprehension.

That Abbott's and broader Australian feelings on ANZAC and Remembrance don't tick the boxes of Bruce Haigh's shallow leftwing trendiness is Haigh's own personal problem.

The main reason for the deaths of Australians in World War One (most on the Western Front) was in the struggle to stop the Germans dominating Europe. It came very close. The Allies, which included Australians, almost lost.

The German authorities were unkind to the parts of Europe they invaded then occupied:

Germany invaded neutral Belgium on 4 August 1914. From the next day, civilians were executed en masse. To retaliate for the shelling from the Belgian forts at Liège, the German troops rounded up inhabitants of surrounding villages. Victims were selected and shot, those still alive being killed off with bayonets.

By 8 August 1914, nearly 850 civilians were dead. By then, several of the dynamics of this particular type of violence had fully emerged. First, the massacres occurred where the invading army suffered setbacks; the German military did not consider Belgium’s military defence to be legitimate.

Second, the victims were accused, incorrectly, of being civilian snipers (terrorists). Most of the German rank and file genuinely believed that the locals were attacking them; this sniper delusion was sometimes countered by the commanding officers, sometimes not.

Third, there were women, children and old men among the victims but the vast majority were men of military age. These were more likely to be suspected of sniping; moreover, the invading troops resented them for still enjoying the civilian life that they themselves had so recently been torn from.

Fourth, and last, the massacres went together with rituals designed to show civilians how helpless they were. People were made to cheer the troops; local dignitaries (mayors, priests) were publicly mistreated, in some cases killed. - http://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/civilian-atrocities-german-1914

I don't think Bruce Haigh has yet thought why our troops really fought and died.

Pete

Have to agree with Curmudgeon; given I lost thirteen blood relatives in WW1.
I hardly think they died in vain, but to protect those folk at home that meant the world to them.
And but for the sacrifice of many, but particularly the yanks and particularly in/during the battle of the coral sea, we would now be speaking German or Japanese, and from an occupied place as barely tolerated tenants/slave labor.
There's this story about a new chum arriving at Gallipoli, at the height of the conflict; with high powered rounds continually cracking overhead, and shell fire concussion fairly making the knee deep feces and urine covered ground beneath his feet repeatedly quake; remarked, "this must be what hell is like"!
To which one of the more seasoned veterans remarked, "yes, but at least there's no flamin' flies".
It wasn't just combatants killed, but unarmed merchant navy men as well; and those civilian noncombatants bombed out of existence, if not house and home.
Of the two world wars referenced, there were absolutely no winners, just losers!
Even so, we must maintain eternal vigilance, and be prepared to don the khaki/send young men and women into harms way again, to protect the innocent from yet another pogrom or genocide; or eliminate a madman, before he does what Hitler did, and forces the whole world into another world war.
I would discourage intending Isil volunteers, by locking them in an ensuited room for up to 24 weeks, and forced listen to the endless audio of a young gut shot solider pleading for mercy, his mum, and somebody, anybody, to put a bullet in his head, to end his unendurable pain, and or hasten his inevitable end!
Or allowed to doze off, only to be ripped awake, again and again, night after night, by the sound of gunfire or high explosives!
And if continued long enough, enough to drive many of them mad, via endless sleep deprivation!
If it's daring do fun and electrifying explosive adventure you want, we've got it in spades! How much do you want?
Rhrosty.

Bruce, to be fair to Tony Abbott, WWI did shape the nation of Australia. The sheer scale of the proportion of men who shipped off for service and those killed and wounded meant Australia would never be the same again. This wasn't perhaps the shaping that Tony Abbott might have been referring to, but unless you can read his mind better than I can.

It also changed internal attitudes in Australia from the UK being 'home' (as if Australia was a foreign land) to Australia being its own country with its own destiny.

As for WWI being unnecessary, that is a hard point to argue. It was probably unnecessary for Australia to be involved so early, but guessing the outcome had different decisions been made is impossible. It is almost certain a war based on the Balkans would occur sooner or later. The continuing weakness of the Ottoman Empire, the jostling of the European powers for influence was always going to lead to conflict. The big surprise to everyone involved was how far reaching and long the conflict was. This should have been no surprise really given the defensive treaties that were in place.

I also think you have been hard on Charles Bean. He was a man of his times and his prejudices influenced what he wrote and how much detail. Just as your prejudices influence your writing.

And lastly, it was the peace that was extracted at the end of WWI that led to the rise of Nazi Germany, not the factors that started the war. If the outcome of the war had been different, perhaps it would have been the rise of Nazi Britain that started WWII.

Bruce, once again you have raised some important issues, although inevitably the comments reflect the prejudices of the readers such as Curmudgeon who sees everything as a "hard left" plot or Plantagenet who fancies his views regardless of the evidence.

You will read a lot of propaganda about WW1, the "making" of Australian nationhood and other popular myths ad nauseum over the next few years. Few if any writers will actually acquaint themselves with modern scholarship. Myths after all, are much more comfortable. It is of course a phenomenon not confined to WW1. Where are the statues to Marshall Zhukov for example who did more to win WW2 than Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery and others that fill volumes of western history than all of them combined.

As long ago as 1998 Niall Ferguson in The Pity of War said that "the war was not inevitable, but rather the mistaken decisions of individuals who would later claim to have been in the grip of impersonal forces."

continued

David G correct again, just as well we have people who think more than the end of their nose, unfortunately most do not, all wars are created for self interest by the war machine elite and Governments, kill off young men from lower ranks of society but definately not from the upper echolon, they are alwayus behind the lines way back.
A certain family with medals all over their chest at variuos functions have always been in the front line, that is why they have the medals, what bull, token only and being a member of that particular family,
Annoying when I see people like Abbott, never eever been to war, sitting in the front church pews or elsewhere shedding crocodile tears for the fallen soldiers, like WW1 the plebs are sent by these people to war with all sorts of enticements like King and Country, or if not receive a white feather for not joining, how stupid were these young lads.
Yes! we are going to be fed many untruths of WW1 by the Government and media, get the young people in a war like mind for any future wars that may eventuate, lets hope they look beyond their nose

continued

Even that was really an apologia for what really happened. We now have a brilliant new book by Gerry Docherty and James MacGregor, Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War (2014). In a detailed analysis relying on previously suppressed documents among other sources, they show that the policies that lead inevitably to war were commenced by the British in the 1890s. There were major policy decisions taken in the succeeding 20+ years that made a war inevitable. A war, it should be noted, that the British wanted and had long planned for. The reason? Britain was concerned that Germany's growing military and economic hegemony in Europe would lead to a challenge to the British Empire's world hegemony.

Australia, along with other outposts of Empire, were seen as cannon fodder in pursuit of these wider geopolitical aims. Thus has it ever been. We see many contemporary examples, the major difference being that we now serve the American empire rather than the British. Our role remains the same.

I urge people to read Docherty and MacGregor's book. It won't change the minds of the usual suspects on this site, but many will benefit from exposure to real history rather than comfortable myths.

Bruce HAIGH'S left-leaning attitudes are palpable. Apparently he's a retired Army Officer, if so he would be a barrel of laughs in the Mess during 'Dining-In' nights, with his peculiar form of Socialist dogma he persists in espousing.

I would have no idea what single event or events assisted in forming the Australian Nation or our unique character. Neither does Bruce HAIGH. It may have been the course of WW l, even the Anglo Boer War ? Certainly WW l was most polarising in terms of opinion, particularly when Mr Wm. HUGHES wanted to introduce conscription, in order to proliferate even higher numbers of ANZAC troops, already deployed to the Western Front.

Anyway, Mr HAIGH though probably well educated, would have little real idea what single event precipitated the actual 'gaining of maturity', for the fledgling Australian Nation. Probably because he's so insensitive to the opinions of others, and he's so influenced by his own, rather overt Socialist perspectives, he does not possess the requisite degree of impartiality, in order to do justice to this particular subject.

I marvel at just how low progressives are willing to stoop for a bit of Abbott bashing. This article is right down there, lower than a snake's belly.

What a sad waste of intellect.

Bruce Haigh is correct . Australian involvement in WW1 should be remembered ,not as the birth of Australia , but as the beginning of Australian subservience to foreign " great and powerful friends " , firstly Britain and then the USA .

Undoubtedly , many Australian servicemen fought and died heroically . Many who volunteered did so because they were afraid not to volunteer , and so be given the white feather . Others did so , out of misguided allegiance to Britain , or to support their mates who volunteered .

Very few would have had a true appreciation of the issues about which the European powers were fighting .

War commemoration is a major industry . Patriotism is often the last refuge of the scoundrel [ to quote Dr Samuel Johnson ] . Politicians and the media have a vested interest in encouraging this furphy that WW1 was the birth of this nation .

James O'Neill - I was pondering over you plantagent reference - what did that mean? - when you came up with this howler.. "There were major policy decisions taken in the succeeding 20+ years that made a war inevitable. A war, it should be noted, that the British wanted and had long planned for."

James, that's nonsense. The Brits had nothing to do with the war starting, and there's no indication of any kind that they wanted it. They simply had no part in the diplomatic argy bargy before hand, except to try to stop it.. and did not get involved until the Germans went into Belgium. In any case, on land, for the first two years or so until the Somme offensive, were bit players.. Their fleet dominated all, but the army was small by European standards. Best you chuck away that book you cite and find something else to read..

There is a time and a place for everything. Ceremonies commemorating World War 1 (watched on by relatives of those lost in battle, current members of the armed forces and a plethera of veterans) are not the place for a balanced critique of that War. Anac Day is not appropriate either.

Soldiers don't decide to start a war. The politicians do. You can honour the sacrifice of dead soldiers without necessarily endorsing every war.

Abbott rightly did not focus on the futility of World War 1. If you read the speeches of Labor figures and their press releases about commemorating the centenary of ANZAC in Albany, the tone is exactly the same as Abbott's. So what is the author going on about?

If England was preparing for WW I for so many years then she was extraordinarily ill prepared; not so ill prepared as in WW II but....

Thank you jaylex. Thank you Bruce.

As a migrant, from Asia, I am a little encouraged that so far no one has gone to the depth of claiming that only those descended from the convicts are the true sons of this terra nullius.

It is also interesting that despite his best effort the hairy chested Abbott does not seem to have repeated the poll gains that Howard made through sending our young men into Iraq. Perhaps we are getting more mature. Or is it that war simply does not ginger us up anymore.

It is also possible that women, half our population, are more focused on the one woman a week dead in our midst at the hands of their male partner. Or that more women die in one season or two than all those who died at the hands of terrorists since Federation. And that we have spent millions, perhaps a hundred or two, in dropping bombs on ISIS, when we could not see clear to do more to help stop the real threat of Ebola.

Sleepers Wake?

chek

Chek,

".... And that we have spent millions, perhaps a hundred or two, in dropping bombs on ISIS, when we could not see clear to do more to help stop the real threat of Ebola"

When did we drop all those bombs on ISIS?

Perhaps a reference or two would be handy.

This approach is deliberately used by the Right to justify Australia's continuing involvement in foreign wars. By focusing on the individual heroism and sacrifice, they can divert attention from the politicians who sent soldiers to die, as you can't really rubbish the young men and women who go off to do what they see as their duty, however misguided they might be. It's a clever tactic and is working well at the moment. Foreign wars are also a way to divert attention from economic problems at home as Tony Abbott well knows. This is why we need to use the next four years to debunk these myths in every way we can.