"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.