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

Yes Gallipoli was a ridicules action, thanks to that dreadful fool Churchill. I wonder who was responsible for more deaths, Hitler or Churchill.

God protect us from fool orators, Hitler, Churchill or Obama, they always lead to catastrophe for the ordinary folk.

Yep orators are dreadful people, but no where near as bad as the horrible little bits of garbage who don't want to honour those who fought & died so we could be free.

If you can't honour your betters, who set you free, for gods sake shut up & go away, into some hole where you belong.

Hasbeen has spoken, though what war was he participating in; is the question ??

Doesn't matter which war you were involved in Boer war to WW11, Churchill would be there, trying to get people killed.

Christianity is not the only religion that has at its core the sacrifice of a young male prophet-type figure in the prime of life (often born of a virgin and having ‘son of god’ credentials), who lays the foundation for the salvation of the world, is ritually killed and then ascends back to heaven.

To name a few …
Adonis and Prometheus (Greece), Beddru (Japan), Buddha Sakia (India), Quexalcote (Mexico), Bremrillah (Druidic), Indra (Tibet), Krishna ( Hindu), Odin and Thor (Nordic), Zoroaster and Mithra (Persia) and Osiris (Egypt).

It’s also no coincidence that many of these guys were ‘born’ around the time of the northern winter solstice – late December.

The prevalence of male-sacrifice-salvation at the centre of so many religions and pagan belief systems is borne of the need to exalt the otherwise needless mass deaths of young men in endless, but futile, wars between various warlords of the ancient, medieval and, now, modern world.

The importance of the male-sacrifice-salvation myth is to prime young men with the sense of war as the noblest and most spiritual experience a man can ever have – regardless of how much it screws him over physically and mentally.

The male-sacrifice-salvation myth propagates the cult of masculinity as an object of worship. According to this all-pervasive ‘death’ cult, to fight in a war is to render oneself a ‘somebody’; to die in a war is to render oneself a saint.

Has, you'll probably enjoy this.
Some years ago, a bright young thing trying to get a handle on war, and the reasons men volunteered to fight them; decided to visit a veterans home, to interview the last remaining Boer war veteran.

Anyhow, she rocked up, was announced and shown into a room where a spritely old centenarian, wanted nothing else but to talk.
I sherved with Winston don't you know, he said, trying to retain a grip on very loose dentures.
And putting them back in with the standard remark, "he was getting around with the worsh shet in town".

Anyhow, she brought him back to the topic, with a, you served with Winston?
Yesh, he replied, I wash in his Calvary unit, and fought not only the Boersh, but the Zulush ash well.
I remember one particular day, when a round grazed me 'ead, and temporarily robbed me of my facualitiesh.
Any'ow, when I came round, I found meshelf alone and laying on a large rock, with the shound of battle moving away.
Then shuddenly, I wash confronted by a large male lion, who shtood up on 'is 'ind legsh, and with unsheathed clawsh extended, roared in my fash.
And proceeded to demonstrate the lion, with unusual vigor for someone as old! Followed by a long pause.
So what happened then, asked the young cub reporter?
To which the old timer replied, I disgraced meshelf!
What, when the lion roared in your face, inquired the cub?
No, Jesht now, when I tried to demonstrate the lions action, replied the now ashen faced old timer.
The nurses will fix that, replied the now intensely interested cub, how did you escape the lion?
I didn't, replied the old timer, it killed me!
But you're still alive, replied the cub, finally catching on that she'd been taken for a ride.
You call this living, replied the oldster; who then broke out into uproarious laughter, followed by oops, oops and NURSH!
Have a couple for me, Rhrosty

I think the author has the wrong end of the stick.

Anzac Day has always been about what a stupid bloody waste war is. The ADF has a policy that people from the same town are not to be put in the same unit, and it stems from having entire australian towns wiped off the map in WW1.

If Anzac Day is a celebration of militarism, then this is a recent development and it is being done deliberately by the usual suspects. The way forward is the way back - to recognise the chest thumping for what it is, and to return to contemplation of the loss of good young men (and women, these days) at the order of foreign higher-ups who didn't give a damn about them.

And let's spare a thought for the foreigners, invaded and defending their own lands as best they can against all the imperial might of the west, being bombed and mown down. Is having our boys in there, painting targets for the drones really what we want our country to be about? Anzac Day absolutely is the right time to ask.

Lest We Forget.

PaulMurrayCbr,
I agree. The problem for me is the repeated declaration that Gallipoli was to do with the formation of the nation. I also regret the pseudo religious talk of sacrifice.

Whatever we may feel nowadays, the idea that Gallipoli was somehow the real birth of the nation came very early. Look at Banjo Paterson’s poem “we’re all Australians now”, published in 1915 as an open letter to the troops at Gallipoli:

The mettle that a race can show
Is proved with shot and steel,
And now we know what nations know
And feel what nations feel

http://allpoetry.com/'We're-All-Australians-Now'

It's all a bit jingoistic and militaristic for my taste, but it illuminates what some people were thinking at the time.

PaulMurrayCBR & Sells definately agree as well, wish all these war mongering Governments past & present, who never attend the front line but only too happy to kill off the young in battle, then attend with solemn faces memorials on their behalf, but really couldn't care less, they being the ones who caused their death in the first place.
Having eighteen year old relatives who died in WW1, I wonder why they died for King and not their country, what fools they were, King how absurd.

My son as a teenager in the US demonstrated against the Vietnamese War. In spite of that he said to me, "When I am 18 I don't want to miss the experience of my generation." Fortunately the war was over before he was 18.

Great article, Peter - just perfect!

Dear Rhrosty,

<<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!>>

But are we free? We are caught in such a web of laws, created by an involuntary body which never even asked us whether we want to belong to it. So long for example that one is not permitted to ride a bicycle without a pot over their head, we are not free!

And were those poor soldiers actually sacrificing their lives? Sacrificing is a voluntary act, but had they not simply been placed in impossible situations where they had no choice but to obey the most stupid orders? Some of them did sacrificed themselves - mainly for their mates, but most were just killed.

Dear Killarney,

I don't know about the others, but Krishna was never sacrificed, nor died in the prime of his life: he had a long life, begot a grandson (Aniruddha) and only left this world once all his tasks for which he came were accomplished.

It's funny how war remembrance only focuses on men killed in battle.

It never gives any attention to those civilians that were killed in the wars fought, often by those very men whose deaths we are commemorating. Other than the Peace monument in Toowong Cemetery in Brisbane - which was built by a private citizen - I can't think of a single war memorial to civilians killed in war. Why are they never honoured or commemorated?

Neither is there a memorial or special day for the indigenous people killed defending their country from invasion.

Neither do we ever commemorate the millions of women who have died in the process of giving birth. Why is their sacrifice never honoured with a memorial or special day?

Also, what about the many people who fought for our REAL freedoms - the freedom to work in decent conditions for a decent wage, the freedom to have time off and to work a reasonable number of hours per day, the freedom to vote, the freedom to access low-cost medical care and education, the freedom of a social safety net if we fall on difficult times.

These freedoms were never given to us. They all had to be fought for, often at great personal cost to those who did the fighting - and whose 'sacrifices' are now completely forgotten.

yuyutsu

Yes, you're right. I was in two minds about including Krishna. However, there are many parallels between him and Christ, such as his 'immaculate conception' birth.

His death also has many parallels with Christ's, even if it wasn't anywhere near as messy.

Like Christ, he welcomed his death, as a kind of sacrifice over the many young men killed in the wars fought between his clan and some other clan, and also because he thought his clan had become too arrogant.

He also, like Christ, did the ascending into 'heaven' thing.

Killarney, and pigs might fly, the whole religious thing is bunkham.

ojnab

Pointing out the parallels between religion and Anzac mythology is not to endorse either. Frankly, I'd like nothing better than for both these addled belief systems to disappear completely from the culture.

Dear Killarney,

<<Frankly, I'd like nothing better than for both these addled belief systems to disappear completely from the culture.>>

Wow, what a strong statement! Then you are a very dangerous person:

You like that more than anything - more than your family, more than you health or wealth or fame or comfort or peace or love, more than your freedom and more than your life... Then neither fear of death, even the death of your whole family, nor of prison, would stop you, then we should expect you to join a group of like-minded people that will acquire nuclear or biological weapons to destroy the world, since that would be the only way for both these belief systems to disappear completely from the culture.

I do envy your determination - if I could have that same purity of indomitable will of yours, then as a religious person, liking nothing more than God, I could unite with Him in no time. We should be thankful, though, that none of the nationalists have that same determination - or else their nation would have conquered the rest of the world in no time.

yuyutsu

What on earth are you talking about? 'I'd like nothing better ...' is purely an expression.

I've also been known to say 'I'd kill for a cup of coffee.' Does that also make me a dangerous person?

As far as I know, no one has ever had to literally die in order for me to get a caffeine fix

Thank you for clarifying, Killarney.

Killarney I think that a percentage of OLO writers overreact to what is said, when in actual fact it is your own way of expressing what you say, what you actually stated had nothing to do with what Yuyutsu brought up in their post,which to me was stupid, still we are all different in how we think, keep up the writings it saves us from getting Altzheimers.

I wish that we could reach the stage where those who profit from war are sent off to fight the war. I wonder if we would instantly have a lot fewer wars.
"War is a Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler sums things up quite well.
At the end of his military career he realized that he had spent most of his adult life increasing the number of millionaires in the USA.