Two comments if I may.
The first is that the stories about the fledgling RAN having landed at the wrong beach has always besmirched the Navy. But a decade ago, when Senator Nick Bolkus was promoting a greater respect for our military heritage, I heard an old soldier remark that he was on the bridge of one ship when the specific order came through to go exactly where they did go.
The order may have well been faulty but not due on any part to the Aussie navy or army.

The other matter is that I learned when formally studying military history that the Turks and Aussies held many cease fires, played sport together, shared religious festivals... It was not they who wanted the war but their political superiors back safely in their own capitals away from harm.

Khamal Ataturk and Churchill both saw their men as expendable

This is a necessary and effective challenge to the uncritical celebration of the Gallipoli defeat. As many Australians died, were wounded or captured in the first seven weeks on the Western Front as in the whole seven months of the Gallipoli campaign. Names like Fromelles (5533 casualties in 14 hours on 19 July 1916) and Pozieres are so rarely spoken in Australia, yet we continue to eulogise Australian's heroism at Gallipoli. Why?

Why do we ignore Villers-Bretonneux, Mont-St Quentin and Passchendaele and Bullecourt? (Some were actually victories under great duress.)

Why has the Anzac myth developed so strongly and why is it now becoming so de rigeur for many young Australians to do a 'pilgrimage' to Anzac Cove?

It's not before time that the truth about Gallipoli and other theatres of WW1 was exposed from the cloak of obscene secrecy thrown over it by those who gloryfy war and continue to expose our youth to untimely death in foreign lands in defence of Empires.

Both my Grandfathers, two great uncles and two second Cousins served in Europe and Palestine and I found their military records obtained from Archives absorbing reading; like one Courts Martial where a young Australian Stockman 2nd Cousin in the Light Horse when harassed by a pommy Sergeant told him to go and get F**ked... Told he would be reported to the Sergeant Major,another Pom, retorted..."Well he can go and get F**ked too."

Then , as now, the returning veterans had to fight for recognition of their sacrifices and as a Nation we have not yet woken to the fact that those who cause the wars do not fight them and troops are always 'expendable'

Anzac Day most certainly should be a day of remembrance exposing the realities of War which inlude the suffering of civilian populations, rape of women and children without the distortions to create myths.

Time has seen Turks and Anzacs respecting each others history just as time will eventually see the Vietnamese as defenders of their homeland and the Iraqi's as fighting foreign invaders.
Lest We Forget ( and dont ever learn)

Celebrating Anzac Day is as perverse as treating the vicious criminal, Ned Kelly, as a hero.

Australians were killed, not by Turks who had every right to defend their country, but by incompetent Pommy officers.

I do not wish to show disrespect for the diggers but, boy, have they been made fools of. Gallipoli was a disaster we should try to forget, rather than celebrate.

I'm an Australian and wouldn't want to be anything else. But, we sure have some funny ideas. It's about time we put aside the ignominy of Anzac Cove, and looked to the future. We have things in our past much more appropriate to be proud of.

As noted above, bravery and sacrafice was made "as a Nation". However, it was not for the country. Rather, it was for King and another country. On reflection, we were not really a nation, and, if memory serves, Defence was still under British control until into the 1920s. [Perhaps, some knows the date?] Curtin standing down Churchill (WWII) was a better example of nationhood. When we become an independent country without its servicepersons swearing allegiance to an English family of largely Germanic decent we will be truly, Australia. Relately, WWI was all treaties and monarchy, that is why the WAS "heard around the World".

As for the ANZACs themselves, the Coo-ee March and social entrapment does not detract from the courage they reported displayed, largely as a result of a moronic British military class upholding a system that has its origins in collapse of the Western Roman Empire,and, the old slave systems ultimately became Lords of the Manor and fiefdoms.

In full stops in sentences and certain words in computer programs are called, "delimiters". Brass bands and pomp and cerimony perform this role too. What are these performances delimiting? Generally, the mistakes made politicians [and for commerce wishing to re-establish business relationships.]. Moreover, we have now transitioned into an early period of religious wars, and, trade with Russia, China and Vietnam. That is macro. The micro, are those whom ride their horses into "valley of death", as would have the 60 million in the twentieth century.

Thank you for this article. I will make my children read it.

Just recently I asked my 13yo old daughter did she know the history behind ANZAC day and Gallipoli after she told me of the 'celebrations' at school. She didn't and was rather unbelieving when I told her.

And thank you for mentioning Churchill's part in the whole saga.

This is an excellent example why history should be compulsory in schools and taught completely and in context. Not the ridiculous disconnected snippets I've seen my sons do at school when I made them 'choose' history at High School.

"And thank you for mentioning Churchill's part in the whole saga." - yvonne

-- Ditto

Churchill must be the overrated launtic of all time. At the beginning of WWII, he commissioned the purchase of mechanical diggers, to dig trenches. Also, Churchill often used doubles of himself in public to avoid person risk. I have read letters in the British War (WWII) to Hirohito, which goes beyond, the diplomatic, to being of a grovelling tone, to one, whom was responsible for [overtly or gain sanction to?] Pearl Harbour and its aftermouth.

[Albeit, Churchill warned about Hitler. But with Reparations there may not have been a Hitler, and, without a WWI, there would not have have been Germany's reparations owed, and, and, without Royal Families, and, the autocrat military families, sipping their Gin and Tonics while millions died, perhaps, there would not have been a WWI, including, Gallipoli.

Of course, we had "Pig Iron" Bob Menzies, sending iron ore to a militaring Japan. And who can forget, "I saw once, as she [Elizabeth] passed-by, I will remember her to the day I die".

Also, had Truman held Roosevelt's line against "colonialism" into the 1950s, Viet-nam may have been avoid.

Were there fools to be lead by fools? The Greatest Generation, or, the Most Foolish Generation?

Dear Harry

Thanks for a good article, as far as you went. Of course, space does not permit you to say everything. However, I think it worth mentioning that the Gallipoli 'celebrations' are supposed to compensate veterans for their ruined lives, whilst they were given very little for what they had suffered in WWI and successive governments did their best to block any claims.

Gallipoli was a shocking waste of lives, a disaster, and not the crucible of a nation. This is an expedient myth to bolster the politicians who have nurtured it.

As Robert Manne points out, the battle coincided with the genocide of a million Armenians. This is never mentioned by the myth makers.

Were the diggers defending Australia? I think not. As thinking people we should be saying that they should never have been there.

What is the truth? Well it depends on how well you can spin the facts.

Sometimes facts don't fit the spin so they get left out.

I can remember as a child watching the movie town newsreels specials on Anzac day.

"They left as boys and came back as men." the voice over said as the troops disembarked the ships.

As a child, war fascinated me and all I wanted to do was to become a soldier. My Grandmother would take me to meet WW11 vets, and with the naivety and innocence of a child, I would ask questions that I would never ask of anyone today.

It easy to pass judgment sitting in our comfortable chairs, on the decisions made many years ago. Hindsight is maybe a wonderful thing. Looking back there is no doubt that there were some extremely poor decisions made and if they had the technology available today.

would they have made the same decisions?

War is a dark and dirty business, and forever changes the people who experience it. For many veterans the war never ends and for many families the grief never ends.

Thanks Harry.
My primary school aged children will read this one - I'll file it for later and get them to read it again in a few years when they're in high school. The brainwashing my children receive about ANZAC day at their Brisbane public school is unbelievable. The carry-on about mateship, fair-go, and heroism - all borne from this maddness nearly a century ago absolutely beggars belief.

For once I can agree with most of the posts on this thread. I came up with a very similar list to Frank Gol on an earlier thread here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5748, including Pozieres, Bullecourt (1 & 2) and Fromelles, Frank says "names like Fromelles (5533 casualties in 14 hours on 19 July 1916) and Pozieres are so rarely spoken in Australia, yet we continue to eulogise Australian's heroism at Gallipoli. Why?" Frank, no-one cares to remember Fromelles because those thousands of Australians died for nothing.

Fromelles was perhaps the greatest disaster in Australian history and was caused by the incompetence and arrogance of the British General Staff, in particular General Richard Haking. Fromelles was designed as a diversionary action for other fighting on the Somme, a reason already obsolete by the time of the battle, and Pompey Elliot described it as a "tactical abortion".

Leigh, not all British officers were poor (nor all Australian officers good) but some of the British saw Australians (like the working class) as expendable. Interesting to note that CEW Bean and Keith Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch's dear old dad) tried to stop the appointment of John Monash to the head of the Australian Army in 1918. Monash went on to mastermind the breaking of the Hindenberg Line, leading to the end of WW1.

Perhaps we need a Fromelles Day to remind us of the value of fighting in other people's wars? And to remind us of why we need the Union Jack on our flag?

Gallipolli was a something that is very important to Australia and New Zealand and I think that Leigh was a little harsh in dismissing the importance of what this all means in our history.

It is a belated article in reflection. The article lacks some credibility as there is too much retoric and not enough critical analysis to see past Australian biass.

But even Harry gave away a problem in the legend. I didn't know this before I spent time in London. The London Times had a front-page article, I think, around April 25, 2000. Their journalists were frustrated that the English soldiers are dismissed in Australian "pommy bashing".

I bristled at this at first, as we do in our educated drill in how it went. The myth the the British soldiers just sat on the cliffs drinking tea while the angelic Australian "lambs to the slaughter" died, without much mention of the New Zealanders of course.

But then they listed the statistics and I wondered about seeing this from their perspective. Harry quoted that the British lost 10,000, Australia and New Zealand lost considerably less in this battle. Did he actually think about these statistics?

The British journalists felt that their troops at Gallipolli outnumbered the Australian and New Zealand troops, and they lost more than both countries put together. They made no excuses for Churchill nor did they dismiss the significance of Gallipolli. They did take great offence that there was such anti-British sentiment.

Their soldiers didn't want to be there either. They were also under the same command that our soldiers had. The faulty communitcations (from British commanders) affected the ordinary British soldiers too.

I think their lives were just as important as the Australians, New Zealanders and the Turks.

What do we have against the British soldiers? We somehow forgive the Turks, yet some are still pommie bashing.

They were just under orders too. Our cousins.

"What do we have against the British soldiers? We somehow forgive the Turks, yet some are still pommie bashing." - SF

If there is a copy in the video shop, borrow a copy of Joseph Losey's, "King & Country": It shows how junior officers and non-commissioned ranks were the victims of the British Field Command.

Pommies's need to be "selectively" bashed, with good cause. In WWI , it is The Crown, politicians and generals [fast tracked from the aristocracy] whom deserve to be go down in history also with Carigula, several Popes and Hilter and Stalin.

Leaders recognize each others' power pistance from the People. After Pearl Harbour, pilots were order NOT to bomb Hirohito's palace, even though they [the pilots] wanted to

Since when did we turn from talking of ANZAC services and commemorations, to talking of celebrations? I must have missed a few years. I finished school only 10 years ago, and was taught a reasonable history of the war, including Gallipoli. It certainly fit with what the general understanding is of what happened.... that we invaded Turkey, that the British command buggered up the landing spot, that we lost, that the conditions were horrific to say the least. I suggest its more the spin put on things by the media that we see it in any other light. Gallipoli holds a special place in our military history for a few reasons:
(1) The particular futility of it
(2) The fact that it was our first military engagement as a country
(3) The naivety of the young men who signed up to see the world
(4) The fact that we have been able to reach a mutual respect with what were the enemy.

Yes, causalities were higher in Europe, but they get lost in the enormity of that particular conflict.

As for us focussing on the Australians at Gallipoli... well, we are Aussies. I am sure that the New Zealanders focus on their troops there too. I dont see that this is a bad thing, so long as we dont forget the overall context that we were not the only ones.

Country Girl,

Good summary points.

O.

What ever name that day goes by ,it is not for celebrating any battle, any General, it is for remembering and for honouring those who for what ever reason, went to do or to die.
I recall the first Anzac Day March I watched in 1950, the men who marched did so with their mates, their eyes agonised in recollection, their backs were straight ,they were together as they had been in their various battles and one felt conscious that those who did not come home, were with them that day.
That is why we honour our Returned men and women, and it is good that Anzac Day is not going unremembered but grows stronger by the year.