True. As old soldiers die, their relatives are encouraged to march to keep Anzac Day going. Kids are even shipped off to Anzac Cove and parts of Europe to see where Australians and their enemies were slaughtered.

Unfortunately, Anzac Day is about the only thing left of an Australian identity. We have nothing to replace it with.

I agree generally with the writer's sentiments, particularly in regard to the First World War, many Australians seem to think that by involving ourselves in our ally's criminal enterprises we are paying some sort of insurance premium. Australia spent 60,000 lives in WW1 for the Empire and the British abandoned us in 1942, we should have learned by now. Anzac day is not a celibration of nationhood and independence but of subservience, that's why it is invoked by conservatives to justify military intervention in support of our "allies". That said I wonder how we could have resisted the Japanese war lords without fighting.

MAC

You don’t know what you are talking about. The British didn’t abandon anyone.

Anzac day is for remembrance of the ultimate sacrifice paid by Australians in the service of their country. Massive numbers of Australians gave their lives. Whether you agree with the decision to fight or not is irrelevant. Anzac day is now about the sacrifice of those who serve our country, sometimes paying for it with their lives. Veterans from all wars march and their service is remembered and we also remember those who never returned.

How exactly was the British involvement in WW1 a criminal enterprise?

As you rightly note in your final sentence, fighting is sometimes unavoidable. So take your religion of peace nonsense and bugger off. I am ashamed to think you might actually be an Australian. Please god I hope not. What kind of miserable human being are you?

Brian Holden,

Says >> “Implied on Anzac Day is that we were noble and our enemies were not.

What absolute rubbish. Services are held in Gallipoli with the Turks every year. In Afghanistan and other places Australian soldiers have celebrated the day with Turkish soldiers.

ANZAC day is a very strong reminder that war should always be the last resort. It is also a reminder of all of the victims of war.

In any case don’t the peace at all cost brigade have their own day when they can lament all of our misdeeds whilst ignoring those of our enemies? Oh I forgot, that’s every day.

Just look back at the peace movement of the 1960’s. That wasn’t a peace movement. There was more “HO HO Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh will win” than “Give peace a chance” being chanted at so-called peace rallies.

I think many people miss the point of ANZAC day and other days of remembrance. The marches and the reinforcement of the self-worth of soldiers themselves and their normally abhorrent acts during wartime as being worth something to history, their nation and their families. A reminder that they aren't criminals.

The homecoming marches (and subsequent remembrances of the fallen) after WWI and WWII served this purpose.

Without this show of support, what you get is the bitterness and feeling of worthlessness that comes after being involved in the wholesale killing of other human beings, and it often doesn't really matter whether it was sanctioned by the government or not.

This is what happened to the Vietnam vets, no homecoming and a constant diatribe on the futility and illegality of their being there and the uselessness of their presence and actions. No wonder more have committed suicide than were killed in the war.

I think the author misses this point. They (the veterans) need ANZAC day, and because we need them, we need it too.

Paul.L.

It is good that we are including Turks in our memorials. Gallipoli was free of atrocities. Have you noticed that we still don’t include Germans?

Only over recent times has the RSL ceased publicly declaring that the Japanese soldier was an animal. If his behaviour was cruel, then he was driven to behave that way.

The Japanese soldier could be assaulted by any of a higher rank [which was not permitted in out army]. He was often hungry and received little medical attention. He was told that if we won, then we would enslave his family.

There is a good article today on the role of the churches in Anzac Day. This is but a minor example of the corruption of Anzac day. The puffed-up people on the podiums at the ceremonies are the parliamentarians. This was the very class of people who pressured our naïve young men into the pointlessness of WW1.

In Keating’s speech on 6/6/93 he said that WW1 taught us of the futility of war. No it didn’t. We conscripted young men for Vietnam. Our parliamentarians misuse Anzac Day to shift the spotlight onto heroics and off the culpability of government in jumping into supporting the political aims of our powerful friends

While this patronising contribution is historically factual - it is not new to most Australians - nor is the notion that - Gallipoli in particular was a failure and nothing short of a cock-up.

The sentimetns surrounding Anzac day in my experience are far more complicated and nuanced than the mere misplacing of emotional energy to a known futile war -

People use it as a vehicle to reflect on just what the Author wants - they reflect on wars futility - they reflect on the waste and the folly of following allies aimlessly into wars we have no real part in - bugger me if Iraq does not spring to mind

Paul L,

Leave your offensive personal remarks aside and try to argue logically. The British did abandon us in WW2 and that strategic genius Churchill tried to divert returning Australian troops to Burma. Australia's security was very low in his priorities. If you prefer to celebrate every useless slaughter as a national triumph that's your business.

I have little time today to get into this-but how I want to!

So, Mac-I haven't read your post in full.

When you make these comments-SPECIFY!!

'The British' did NOT abandon Australian troops.

It disgusts me to hear this.

I want a response from you:- Do you truly believe that a soldier; ANY soldier would calculatingly leave his comrade to be injured or die?

This burned my father, and once reduced him to tears.
How dare you even hint that any trooper could possibly do this deliberately?

If you want to assert that view;-and I have heard it before;-direct your nasty comment at those who were at the top.

As I said-SPECIFY. You insult ALL British military personnel with such comments, and they DO NOT deserve it!

______________________________________

I would also make the observation that OLO moves pretty fast with new threads and articles. It surprises me that there are so many threads allowed that are the same!

I just find it hypocitical how the government love to have all this fanfare and chest beating while swindling the war veterans out of money.

I'd rather all the 'symbolism' to be replaced by practical application of funds to these soldiers and their health problems.

Besides, nobody cares about anything except Gallipoli. The focus really needs to be taken off this one fight.

No...lets keep Anzac Day.
It suits the devil and his dark powers to have us wandering with nothing to fix on but despair, hopelessness and addiction.
Ecclesiastes says theres a time for war and a time for peace.
I think the young men died for little if we forget their efforts.

There are two issues evident here. One is the futility of war and the other is the relevance of ANZAC Day. The former is an issue that can be debated ad nauseum. Its the latter I wish to address.

The ANZACS were the birth of this nations identity and my goodness, what a proud and unique identity they forged under unimaginable conditions. I am quite sure Mr Holden , under conditions you have very likely never experienced.

It is the ANZAC Spirit we are honoring on ANZAC Day. I quote segments of a beautifully written essay on this very topic that encapsulates the actual meaning of ANZAC Day.

“These bold, laughing soldiers were a new, unknown factor of a very old Empire. 'They seemed to be of one race, for all of them had something the same bearing, and something the same look of humorous, swift decision'. But if the British thought they 'took a bit of getting used to', the enemy never got used to them. These 'colonials' fought as they lived - bravely, openly, independently, and without fear. They proved that their young countries could produce men equal to any in the world, perhaps the greatest fighting force this world has known - the ANZACs.

The Spirit of ANZAC was kindled. It flared with a previously unknown, almost superhuman strength. There was a determination, a zest, a drive which swept up from the beaches on Gallipoli Peninsula as the ANZACs thrust forward with their torch of freedom. As they fell, they threw those following the torch so their quest would maintain its momentum. That Torch of Freedom has continually been thrown from falling hands, has kindled in the catchers' souls a zeal and desire for both our individual liberty and our countries' liberty. That desire has been handed down with the memory and burns as brightly as the flame which first kindled it. (Retired Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Burke)

And that Mr Holden, it what it is all about.

"The British did abandon us in WW2 and that strategic genius Churchill tried to divert returning Australian troops to Burma."

Worse, the only reason Churchill diverted the troops was because he was afraid the war would end without any of the troops under his command seeing combat. Gallipoli was meant to be a neat little addition to his curriculum vitae.

Tammy-Jo,

I usually agree pretty wholeheartedly with your posts but in this particular issue we find ourselves in opposing camps. I understand what you are saying - that this was the first time Australia as a nation entered in the world arena and that we should celebrate the fact that they acquitted themselves in a way which brought them to the worlds attention and earned them a certain reputation.

But I find the quote that you included a piece of the same kind of jingoism which lured the poor, unprepared kids into the whole mess in the first place - from all sides. We refer to them as "men" and "soldiers" when in reality they were, in the main, teenagers. Country kids or street urchins dazzled by words such as these.

As to them being "fearless" - twaddle! Show me anyone who is fearless going into battle and I'll show you either a sociopath or the village idiot. They kakked their daks and cried for their mothers and railed at uncaring governments just as kids going into battle do to-day.(I lived in South Africa where 18years old went straight from Year 12 to the front lines). The betrayal is that the poor little buggers are forever portrayed by the chessplayers like the one who wrote these words as Knights when in reality they were pawns.

Back in the day we elected as our leaders the person who was strongest, toughest and protected the clan well. I would love to see Bush et. al. getting down and dirty in a knock down drag 'em out fight with whoever their opponent is these days to decide issues. Instead of breeding up tens of thousands of ignorant young kids and using the body-count to decide who the victors are.

It is true that Gallipoli contributed greatly to the birth of Australian national identity. One can question whether national identity is a good thing. National identity serves to sanction the killing of a person with a different national identity. Pride in one's family is pride due to circumstances we have little or no control over. National identity is usually similar.

May nations become merely convenient administrative units. Unit K2 will be unlikely to go to war with Unit Z32 over area 21R2.

Ginx

“So, Mac-I haven't read your post in full.”

You definitely should next time Ginx before you jump in so strongly. Mac was criticizing the British Government of the day not the individual British soldier.

sneekeepete

“People use it as a vehicle to reflect on just what the Author wants - they reflect on wars futility - they reflect on the waste and the folly of following allies aimlessly into wars we have no real part in - bugger me if Iraq does not spring to mind.”

On the contrary, I don’t think most Australians do this at all. The whole event seems to bring on a mass hypnosis. The marches, the uniforms, medals, flags and general military fanfare all seem to obliterate any questions of why we were involved in Gallipoli in the first place, or why we still fail to explore alternative options for resolving conflict or containing rogue states. The very fact of our involvement in Iraq is to me just more evidence of the lack of any true reflection on the meaning of Gallipoli.

I had a young student ask me yesterday, Why were we at Gallipoli anyway? I didn’t have an answer, but I did tell him to keep asking the question. Perhaps Paul L or Tammy-Jo can give me an answer for the next time I’m asked this.

Dear Bronwyn,

Churchill was aware of the strains on Russia by the German attack and internal dissent. It was only possible to supply Russia by the ocean route through the Arctic Sea, If passage could be opened to the Black Sea it would be possible to send quantities of war material to Russia. Had the operation on Gallipoli succeeded and a passage to the Black Sea established Russia could have continued in the war, and there might not have been a Russian Revolution.

Most of these comments are utter rubbish!

Anzac Day is not a day to remember the politics behind the wars - it is a day to remember the young men and women who innocently fought for their country.

These people really had no idea about why there was a war...all they knew was that if they didnt fight their future democratic and free way of life would be threatened - thats all.

Anzac Day is to remember these Australians who sacraficed their lives for the country they loved...nothing else.

To trivialise or fault their reasons for fighting in a war they didnt create is nothing short of giving the veterans the finger.

Nobody is glorifying war...just remembering whole generations of young men and women who died for what they believed was a great country.

Leave it alone.

Well said IZZO

I myself being ex army but not going overseas for active service do to requirements here in australia.

I am medically discharged and i am treated like garbage by our government and anzac day well i have to greatest admiration and support for those who stood up no matter where they went to fight for our future and democracy.

It is our defence that stands between you and the enemy unless some of you want to do it. I find that many here would bow and do as they are told just by political parties.

So keep your hands off Anzac day.

If you want to take away a day try your birthday,aniversary.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent
Will be stand again at the next federal election, fighting for the people and not dictatorship rule from the parties.

Lest we forget

Anyone who has ever lived in the middle of a 'soldier settlement' at any time as I have would realise that Anzac Day has enormous emotional significance for returned men and women and their families.
The very least the rest of the community can do is honour the enormous sacrifice and ongoing upheaval in the lives of those who fought.
The war is not over for them. It will never be over. They are still suffering physically and mentally and their families are often strained to breaking point by it at times.
Anzac Day is not a day of celebration. It should be a day of solemn remembrance and reflection. Most people will use it as an excuse to have a day off work and give little, if any thought, to the meaning behind it.
The disaster of Gallipoli should be used as an example of the utter futility of war and the lesson should be taught to every one of us.

Poor Brian Holden - embittered,disillusioned and lampooner of National Icons. His obnoxious tirade of Anzac Day is nothing innovative, particularly at a time when even retired members of the Clergy i.e Alan Matheson also analsyises "Anzac Day: a faith event" on OLO, this week.

Beneath the scatology, both B & A seem to be suffering chronic PTSD, with the proverbial ' sour grapes ' thrown in. Whatever. The shibboleth's have served Aust's forgotten hero's for over a century.Anzac Day will continue to prevail, enlightening, educating our youth - 0f the sacrifices their forefathers made to uphold our National beliefs, ensuring our Country remains free of Tyranny, despotism and mindless terrorism.

So what if Anzac Day is celebrated with marches, fifes and drums ? It symbolises the reverences paid to Veterans who returned - to their mates who didn't. Marching, hobbling or being transported in military jeeps signifies these vets are still capable, rain, hail or sunshine,of saluting their cobber's demise and paying homage to those long departed. Many interred in Foreign lands, yet still remembered.

Terry Sweetman, of the Courier Mail wrote of his visits to War Cemetaries worldwide.Of how he was overcome with grief at the Kanchanaburi and Chung Kai War cemetery in Thailand, where he viewed the plaques carrying the names, military insignia and short epitaphs for Dutch, British, French and Aussie soldiers who worked the Burma-Thai death railway, succumbing to tropical diseases, malnutrition and the relentless barbaric treatment of the Japanese Military. Who can forget ?

There is nothing ' dilussional ' about the Sandakan-Ranau death march in which only 6 survived. The sinking of the Centaur, where of 332, only 64 survived, nor the horrors of Changi, Tamarkan etc POW camps.
These surviving diggers march, limp and drag themselves religiously every 25th April to attend the dawn service, and where possible repeat themselves later in the day, accompanied by their grand-children who are not swayed by avant-garde ' kitchen-sink mentality ' iconic busters !

The American equivalent is Memorial Day - last Monday in May. Most States observe it in memory of the dead servicemen and

Romany,

I take your point on board and I will admit that perhaps the quote I provided was not entirely consistant with what I was really trying to say. It may have been too militaristic and melodramtic. So I will attempt to articulate my passion and emotional response to the ANZAC's and their enduring spirit.

I mourn the loss of the young lives sent to war. I mourn the aftermath of war on those who served. I mourn for the mothers who sent their boys off to war to never see them again. I mourn for the loss of families- never to be together again. I mourn for the corruption of innocence. I even mourn for the ugliness of humankind that even considers war as a solution.

So for me, I think of an unnamed solider, huddling in freezing, disease ridden conditions, wondering "what the hell did I let himself in for." I think of him realizing the foolhardiness of his choice to go to a foreign land in the search of excitement and adventure. I think of him having that split second thought before he takes his last breath and his last thought of "this is not how my life is supposed to end."

On ANZAC Day I honor the fact that their deaths were not in vain. I honor the fact that they are not forgotten. I honor that their lives really did made a difference. And that difference is evident in the tears and hearts of those who respectfully honor ANZAC Day.

Yeah, lets cancel the entire day ! It serves very little purpose anymore. Most (including the RSL), have completely lost the meaning of what the day represents.

It's been taken over by the Politicians; Broadcasters (all lecturing us on how we must feel; act; and behave... ad nauseam). In fact, all and sundry; including those with the slightest, most remote connection to some poor obscure veteran, hidden somewhere deep within the family's lineage.

Even children and those representing a family member, can march on the Day. The poor old legitimate veteran seems evermore 'crowded' out of his OWN March by an ever increasing bunch of interlopers, all veying for a spot in the reflected glory and limelight of ANZAC Day.

I remember not so long ago, it was not at all prudent to admit that you were a veteran. Particularly a Vietnam Veteran. Today, it's almost fashionable to be so, or at least have a very close connection to a veteran.

I remember very very clearly arriving at Mascot Airport in the early hours of the morning, no welcome whatsoever (except from a scattering of Custom Officers), told to wear civies, and than spirited off into the night to our various homes and/or Barracks.

A couple of days later, we marched down George Street, Sydney as some sort of a 'welcome home' parade, and our CO had red paint thrown over him, as he led that parade. Some welcome home ?

Yeah, cancel the day absolutely ! Or let the fashionable 'left' take it over. Myself, I'm done with it.

It is time Anzac day was replaced.

The thing about WAR, it always beings about the thoughts of pointless deaths and the holes that it leaves in peoples life's. The marches must keep going to remind us of the waste and the pain that it causes.

This subject will stir many opinions and its up us to have the sentivities and common respect for the ones that it most affects.

All of us.

servicemen and women, in all Wars.

One has only to watch the beaming, smiling faces, proud-as-punch alongside Grandpa, to realise Anzac Day will survive, B & A notwithstanding.

The Australian War Memorial is not a glorification of War; an edification of Oz's military prowess; nor even a relic of the past - it's a collection of Historical memorabilia from 1885-1973. It covers the Sudan, Boer, Korea, Borneo, Vietan etc It's showrooms recently redesigned, enlarged, spanning a greater part of Cambell in Canberra. It contains the who's who of the tri-service, legends, and an encyclopaedia of most conflicts; a researcher's paradise rivalling the National Archives. Their information service via the Internet, media and publications is our Nation's treasure.

BH quote: " implied on Anzac Day is that we were noble and our enemies not " ?? " war automatically opens the door to brutality "

The sheer brutality of the Bushido Military Clique 1937-1945 is legendary horror. The rape of Nanking, Hong Kong and Singapore etc has never before been perpetuated in the Annals of warfare, since Atilla the Hun and the Mongol invasion of China. It wasn't combatants who were starved, tortured and murdered in cold blood, it was tens-0f-thousands of civilians who were bayoneted, pack-raped, incinerated and beheaded in the name of Emperor Hirohito.

We treated Japanese POW's humanely, and in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The fact POW's rebelled and committed hari-kari at Cowra is an indictment of the Japanese psyche. Weasel words wont convince us otherwise. The culprits were hanged after the War. Everyone professing their innocence,swearing they performed their duty to their God's anointed, Emperor.

Service Chaplins come in all Faiths and sizes. In Vietnam, the padres put in an extraordinary amount of their time in Orphanages, Catholic hospices for abandoned children of US servicemen, deformed, maimed,discarded jetsam. They shared the mortar and rocket attacks, cold meals and privations.

Perhaps, Chaplins should served in theatres of War, under constant threat, and endured it with stoic equanimity. Beside's it's a Honorary role, promotion,and a coveted Order of Australia is the last thing in a practicing priest's agenda.

Yeah, Tammy-Jo, its a tough one.

I think you understand that I don't mean we should leave them to rot in futility. I think its the WAY we do it that gets up my nose.

If one of my kids had been murdered in a war and I saw some paunchy, well-preserved Big-wig, all shiny brass buttons and a chest full of fruit salad, piously placing a wreath I'd probably want to king hit him.

I guess its all the cant and hypocrisy from those who continue to use human sacrifices in their games and thus generate more willing sacrifices that I object to. If we remember them then I think it should be with the spouses and parents screaming their pain to the cameras. The only ones to make speeches should be those who had lost a mate or partner or parent. We should all dress in black and be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. While the politicians and the Brass should wear sackcloth and ashes and be reviled.

I obviously do not envisage the above as a realistic scenario but perhaps it illustrates more fully my objections to the day? While we "celebrate" the dead instead of mourning them, see them as heroes instead of victims, then war will continue to be glorified

The absolute worst aspect of celebrating Anzac Day is the misrepresentation of not just the overall outcome of the campaign, but of the Anzac soldiers' qualities. Most recent Australian historians agree that the Anzacs were manifestly slothful, rude to officers and it has been documented that many ran from the battle in fear. Regardless of whether or not this cowardliness was justified, the fact remains that the portrayal of our soldiers in the 'Anzac Legend' is sophistry. Instead of celebrating a myth and lies, Anzac Day should be replaced simply by Australia Day. Why can't we honour those who went to war for our country whilst celebrating our values as well. That way, instead of spuriously convincing ourselves the Anzacs were supermen, we can acknowledge the ideals that Australia strives to attain, which is what Anzac Day currently is.

War experiences, at home and abroad, have shaped Australia's post-Federation history like nothing else. It would be more than petty to suggest Anzac Day is overplayed in Australian importance. It would be disrespectful and offensive and plainly wrong. It is appropriate, also, to remember that the nation's commemoration of its fallen is not some misplaced celebration of glory.

It is an occasion for reflection, an opportunity to consider the price freedom-loving people are willing (and sometimes compelled) to pay for a way of life, a time to consider how the privileges of today were afforded by sacrifices of the past and to contemplate what might have been had nations been willing to settle their differences by means other than aggression.

When Australians pay homage at dawn services, they participate in a nation's reflection. They should not be embarrassed when their throats turn to lumps or their eyes mist over. The fallen deserve nothing less. So, too, do those who served and survived.

When I want a dressing down from you Bronwyn, I'll send you an embossed invitation, specifically because I was addressing someone else.

"The British did abandon us in WW2............."
Posted by mac, Thursday, 24 April 2008 11:40:25 AM

I was referring to THIS post above mine which I COULD read swiftly because it was short. I understand even in that quoted post that Mac HAS referred to the tactics of Churchill, but I am referring to the quote "the British",-(which I quoted),-and THAT refers to the nation; the people;-the military personnel.

It is unnecessary to mention THE BRITISH if one is referring to the actions of Churchill alone.

I asked Mac 'to SPECIFY' because I do not like the inference that British soldiers 'abandoned' their ANZAC comrades. They did not.

OK??............Bronwyn. I really don't want to waste any further time justifying myself to you....

______________________________________

Izzo:- absolutely spot on! Bravo to you!

______________________________________

Each to their own opinion, but I will leave it to the survivors of war who will march tomorrow to decide for themselves the relevance of the day. It is their business.

"Lest We Forget".

That's what it's all about. Many people were traumatised by the war(s). It was a significant part of their family history and they don't want to see it forgotten.

BUT... STOP....how any of the very same people argue that Australian Aborigines should forget their traumas? Aboriginal people, nearly all of them, were traumatised by their experiences in the undeclared war that took place. They can't possibly forget it. But they are repeatedly told their traumas should be swept under the carpet - or, worse, it didn't really happen to them.

If we remove the military heroics and celebration from the ANZAC celebrations, and we appreciate it as a general reflection on war, then that's okay. But we have to be consistent. We have to allow closure for Aboriginal people who suffered great traumas.

Australia virtually closes down for a day and saturates its media to commemorate one historical circumstance, but virtually no space is allowed for another. There is no special day for that abhorrent history. We are like the modern day Germans who feel so embarrassed by what Hitler did on their behalves they still find it hard to talk about.

Give the ANZACS their due, but let's not cringe from our other victims of war.

Gecko

Excellent point re: Aboriginal Trauma.

Perhaps a national day of mourning would be a more appropriate reflection on the futility of war; the effects of war spans generations. My father returned an alcoholic and manic/depressive, I suffer from depression to the level where I have wasted any opportunity for a meaningful career.

My father like most men did not talk about his war experiences, I do know he loathed guns, would not join his mates to go hunting. As a little girl I asked him if he had ever killed anyone, he said he didn't know. I asked him if he was a hero, he said you have to be seen to be a hero.

To all the valiant men and women whose efforts and lives were valiantly wasted in war, may we never forget.

But when will we ever learn?

Ginx,

My term "British" refers to the nation state( which Bronwyn understood). You can huff and puff as much as you like, it won't alter the historical facts, defeat of the Nazis was the first priority for the UK government, Australia was simply a source of troops and expendable. Many British people, of my acquaintance, are ignorant of the huge sacrifice Australians made in Britain's defence in both World Wars. So much for the value of alliances. Are you British by the way?

Most of the above posts attempt to reduce a complex issue to a single scenario; encapsulated generally in ‘we celebrate ANZAC Day to commemorate the sacrifice of the dead’.

Crucial here is, who is ‘we’?

‘We’ are the people, and the above sentiment is certainly what occupies our minds on this day. That many of us are angry about the lies that send us to war is an added emotion.

But critics are primarily referring to Government and the media hijacking the word ‘we’; using Anzac Day to stir and harness our legitimate emotions specifically so that we will support more wars. They must do this because nowadays the Internet exposes their lies almost instantly. Thus, Kevin Rudd and his predecessors must repeat the phrase ‘fighting for peace and freedom and democracy’ as often as possible. Anzac Day is used to market war.

In fact, the Vietnamese, Afghanis and Iraqis were never in a position to threaten our ‘freedom and democracy’ (what little we have left). The people of Iran and Venezuela, who are the known next victims on the hit list, are also no threat to Australia.

What we have done is allied ourselves to an aggressive and imperial monster that has invaded 42 sovereign nations since 1946, and now militarily occupies 173. That this world's worst empire claims to be defending ‘freedom and democracy’ demonstrates the gullibility of the above-posting jingoists.

For their part, critics of Anzac Day are reminding us that we are once again being betrayed into killing our fellow human beings; men, women and children, without any moral or legal claim to self-defence. What I suggest is that we steal the enemy’s excellent weapons and use Anzac Day 2009 as a forum to demand Australia’s Defence Force be used only to defend the Australian people, in Australia. My information is that the vast majority of people will support this, whereas they will not support the dumping of Anzac day.

I stand by my words, Ginx, and won’t be intimidated by your bullying tone. I knew your comments were directed to someone else. The only reason I picked up on them and I am perfectly entitled to do so in an open forum, was not to lecture you as you put it but because they went very directly to the nub of this whole debate.

Critics of Anzac Day in its current form are not criticizing individual soldiers or any other victims of war. I shed a tear at every Anzac Day commemoration I attend and I’m sure they do too. I weep for every young soldier mown down in the prime of his life. I have nothing but respect for their valour and sacrifice and will always lay a wreath in their honour.

Our beef is not with the individual. It’s with governments and defence force bigwigs and everyone else who has turned the modern day Anzac commemoration into a grand celebratory event and, wittingly or not, are using it to recruit the next generation of cannon fodder. The sanitized version of war depicted by most Anzac Day events is so far removed from the unimaginably horrific reality, and all the longterm ramifications that flow on from it, that it really is doing our younger generation a huge disservice. If the Anzac diggers could see what was happening today I’m sure most of them would shake their heads in sad disbelief and ask despairingly, ‘Have you learned nothing from our sacrifice?’

Romany has articulated my feelings on this subject perfectly. I can’t improve on anything she's said other than to repeat her last sentence which truly encapsulates my concerns about the celebration of Anzac Day.

“While we ‘celebrate’ the dead instead of mourning them, see them as heroes instead of victims, then war will continue to be glorified.”

David f

Thanks for your explanation. It does at least provide a noble reason for a less than noble action. I can only assume that Turkey was totally unco-operative and that invasion was the last and only recourse for the Allies.

Mac,

The attempt to divert the troops was not abandonment. Australia itself was never in danger of being invaded by the Japanese and strategically, Churchill felt the troops could be better used in Burma. He was wrong to attempt to dictate troop movements against our wishes, but this in no way constitutes an abandonment. Apart from this mess, Churchill was one of the finest military leaders ever. Gallipoli would have been a masterstroke had it come off, and there was good reason to believe it might.

Sancho

Churchill tried to divert Australian troops to Burma in WW2. Gallipoli was WW1. At least get your facts right.

Romany,

There was no such thing as teenagers in 1914. Young people were a lot more mature than they are today. Many young people choose to serve their country in its time of need. Who are you to judge them.

Browyn,

If you’re a teacher read the history books. We were in Gallipoli fighting as an integral part of the British Empire. Gallipoli itself was the landing place to allow the British Army to silence the Turkish Guns which were preventing British warships from moving through the Dardanelles to bombard Istanbul. They hoped this would lead to the surrender of the Ottoman Empire and a new supply route to Russia.

O Sung Wu,

I think your and other Vietnam vets experiences when you arrived home show exactly why we should never forget Anzac day. The 'soft-left' especially need a regular reminder that the decision to go to war and fight is not made by soldiers. Those who serve their country should NEVER again be treated in the manner which you and your comrades were treated. I hope that the band wagon jumpers of the hippy generation feel an abiding and life long shame for their actions. UNFORGIVABLE

SYRIAX,

You don’t have a clue what you are taking about. Try reading about the battle at The Nek or at Lone Pine. Then rethink your ignorance.

IZZO

exactly

I tried to watch the Gallipoli dawn service but when the hymns started I had to switch off. Where would the clergy be without these opportunities to be stars?

And, why in St. Andrews Cathedral yesterday at the HMAS Sydney service were the politicians in the front seats?

Paul L,

You are writing with the benefit of hindsight. How did Churchill know, at the time, that Australia was never in danger, the truth is that, he probably didn't care. Perhaps the troops could have been "better used in Burma", in Britain's strategic interests, not ours. Too many Australians seem to be unable to distinguish our national interests from those of our great and powerful "friends". Australia didn't come of age at Gallipoli we, as a nation, demonstrated our subservient status.

WW1 was supposed to end all wars. We have had dozens since, invaded nations that did not even raise a voice at us and been partly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people.

Until we stop jumping into these absurd wars we have to cancel Anzac day and stop pretending our soldiers are the greatest things since sliced bread.

They join up to kill people.

When we bleat out 'lest we forget" it is because we have forgotten, just at the moment it is particularly stupid because we are bogged down in two useless wars and supporting Israel in two more.

Bronwyn wrote:

Thanks for your explanation. It does at least provide a noble reason for a less than noble action. I can only assume that Turkey was totally unco-operative and that invasion was the last and only recourse for the Allies.

Dear Bronwyn,

The Turks were non-cooperative with any move to help Russia because they were in the war on the side of Germany and historically had opposed Russia. Turkey had been pulled into the war by Germany.

Abdülhamid viewed the German Empire as a possible friend of the Turkish Empire. Kaiser Wilhelm II was twice hosted by Abdülhamid in Istanbul; first on October 21, 1889, and nine years later, on October 5, 1898 (Wilhelm II later visited Istanbul for a third time, on October 15, 1917, as a guest of Mehmed V). German officers (like Baron von der Goltz and von Ditfurth) were employed to oversee the reorganization of the Ottoman army. German government officials were brought in to reorganize the Ottoman government's finances. Although Turkey was an ally of Germany many in the government wanted Turkey to remain neutral in WW1.

On 4 August 1914 German armies crossed the Belgian border on the way to France. Turkey remained neutral, but its armed forces were to an extent under German command. A Turkish flotilla including two German warships cruised the Black Sea. On 29 October, 1914 the flotilla suddenly bombarded the Russian ports of Odessa, Sevastopol and Theodosia. That was an act of war, and Turkey was now at war with the Allied Powers. Without the German presence in the Turkish armed forces Turkey might have remained neutral as it did in World War 2.

On 25 April, 1915 Australians together with other Allied troops landed at Gallipoli. In that same month the Turks started to deport and massacre the Armenians. The landing at Gallipoli may have been one of the factors which led Turkey to commit genocide.

ONE. (TWO might be delayed by post limit.)

Ginx,
"My term "British" refers to the nation state( which Bronwyn understood).............Many British people,.....are ignorant of the huge sacrifice Australians made in Britain's defence in both World Wars.......Are you British by the way?"
Posted by mac, Friday, 25 April 2008 11:48:02 AM
_______________

'Your term' British refers to the 'nation state'? And who in the hell do you think goes to make that?
How cowardly of you mac to hide behind the excuse so conveniently handed to you by another poster! And how typical of one who can do that,-to refer to the lack of courage of others;-others who faced the kind of hell you and I will never know.

Huff and puff? That from a tactical expert who sits at a computer in the comfort of home, and passes judgment on matters you have not experienced and clearly know little about. Yes. You are an expert on huff and puff!

How sad that there are those on this thread who use their intellect and analytical skills to dissect the merits of this day, espousing a negative view of those who HAVE seen hell, and march publicly on this ONE DAY per YEAR!

And You? You seek to use THEIR day to your own ends. It was an unnecessary conflict. NO ONE should have been maimed or killed. The British sustained massive losses; AS WELL. Or is that of no consequence?

I am not English/I/S/W.My father fought in WW11. I will use HIS experience in warfare as a yardstick, NOT your silly armchair theories.

NOW;- I asked you a question, and predictably, you did not answer it.

DO YOU BELIEVE BRITISH TROUPS DELIBERATELY LET THEIR ANZAC COMRADES DIE?

Is that clear enough?

I'm asking you if you believe that British troups were cowards?
_______________________________________

Brian Holden

It is people like you who are most damaging at this moment with Islamofascism taking root even among our own university academics. The Griffith University Vice-Chancellor has even been caught plagiarising from Wikipedia to push a pro-Wahhabist agenda because Griffith's new Islamist Centre is being funded by the terror-financiers Saudi government!

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/queenslands-professors-of-terror-or.html

Oh!Yes , cancel ANZAC Day, replace it with Mr Rudd's friends flying the Red Flag-or- The Crescent. Do away with the old democratic Australia. But what will you replace us with, Communism or Islamism.
Ism's don't work, just look at their homelands.
Stupid ,stupid cringing, apologetic lefties.When will they ever learn?

I am glad to see that the young ones are able to go and honour the soldiers who gave their lives without really knowing what they were fighting for. In theory it could be said that most of Australia who do acknowledge their sacrifice and wish to remember are both endorsing the fighting men themselves and the course of which they were fighting. In tradition, it could still be said that it was a good thing fighting for Britain, however I disagree with this. I feel no connection whatsoever with that country therefore I find it puzzling and hard to understand how fighting for the British Empire and Australia can be considered possible at the same time. Australia has never tried too hard to create a culture and identity of its own, it has mainly being thrust upon by the changing of times and Britain's reduced role in the world which was of course shown in our relations in later World War II, from thereon we essentially were forced to be independant. I have a lot of trouble being proud of a past that was largely about being loyal to a different country to the one I was born and raised in. The ANZAC tradition I guess will become more and more a indication of the cost of war rather than a endorsement of what they were fighting for, to me this is the only way it can properly survive, because I am not British nor am I loyal to Britain nor am I loyal to their Queen.

Warning - left wing loonie madman psychiatric rant follows. (As an aside questioning someone's psychiatric state because they disagreed with you was who Stalin incarcerated quite a few people.)

Some posters are keen to honour the bravery of our soldiers fighting against "the enemy"(who always happened to be "enemies" of one of the great powers and often in a fight between competing imperialisms.)

If we are so keen to do that, why don't those posters and the rest of the right wing propose an annual day of celebration for aboriginal freedom fighters who fought and died bravely defending their land and people from the white Anglo colonialist invaders?

Something equivalent to Anzac day but remembering the brave resistance fighters.

Fat chance, because what Anzac day celebrates is one view of history, a view that wants to have aggressive nationalism with its myths of bravery and fighting for freedom obliterate the idea and reality of class. It wants to honour particular wars and make those kind of aggressive imperialist wars acceptable to future generations. Otherwise why all this concentration on kids attending or at least seeing the solemnity and the other stuff? It wants to reinforce the idea it is OK for Australians to invade other countries with our major imperialist friends as a way of protecting our own imperialist adventures in the area.

The ruling elite took the concept of remembering and honouring a particular group of war dead (and they still profess to do that) and shrouded it in patriotism and various myths about freedom and bravery to enable their power to continue then, now and into the future. just as they need a whole propaganda machine around the family (and often associated with homophobia and keeping women int eh home) they also need a whole propaganda machine to convince large swathes of workers to don uniforms, invade other countries and kill the inhabitants.

My question about a day for remembering Aboriginal resistance is still valid because there we would be remembering those fighting against the elite, not for it.

Hi there...** GINX & PAUL.L **

You're both so right...

Some of those correspondents herein, who EXPOUND the loudest, SERMONIZE the most, and PONTIFICATE habitually and, who regularly proclaim their odious LEFTIST views (usually on such a solomn and significant occasion as ANZAC day) have never worn a uniform whatsoever.

Yet they have the temerity to moralise and philosophize on the merits or otherwise,of Australia's involvement in the various conflicts abroad.

Most have never worn 'greens'. Or tried to keep dry in dense jungle during a Monsoon. Really sweating on a 'dust off' for a critically injured mate ? And waiting for an 'extraction' that's already overdue, having spent fourteen days or so, outside the wire (with a magnificent view of the Long Hai Hills, if you're lucky); then there's this other bloke who stupidly burnt his hand trying to change a barrel on the sections' M60 GPMG, after a bloody inconvenient 'cook off'!

Yeah, I'll leave all the philosophical experts to 'moralise' on Australia's involvement in past; present and the future.

Gotta say though, I'd much rather have a few drinks with a pommy, yank, kiwi or aussie 'grunt' then have one with an intellectual and cerebral 'leftie' academic ! At least with the grunt, what you see is what you get !

o sung woh.

You're right. I have never worn a uniform, and was going to be a conscious objector against one of the wars you sign the praises of, a war in which more than 2 million mostly Vietnamese died.

I don't have to wear a uniform to discuss why war occurs. Only defence forces can talk about it? Presumably only teachers can talk about education policy and only nurses and doctors about health policy. And it does seem to contradict the main idea offered for supporting Anzac day, namely that our soldiers were (and are) fighting for freedom at home - while at the same time denying that freedom (including the freedom to live)in my humble opinion - to millions around the world.

In fact this sort of silly comment and the usual discussion about how tough war is for those who do it ignores the basic question. Why is there war, and why are we involved in them as aggressors? And by ignoring this basic question (which is what our masters want), and by raising its celebration to some mythical status, it supports war, the war waged around the world for profit by the major terrorists sitting in Washington and London and Canberra.

Oh for crying out loud. As if there aren't enough threads on left wing politics versus right wing.

To those of you who are just taking the opportunity to slam 'lefties' or 'righties' here, I say, grow up. Honestly. It really does sound like a petulant, childish little whinge. Yes, I'm talking to you, mickijo and o sung wu.
Who judges who is a 'lefty' and who is worthy to discuss such matters? Unless you were in the trenches, I'd say you're just as ignorant as those you condemn.

On the ANZAC day -

Izzo makes a good point insofar as it's about remembering the fallen. Yeah, okay, some of the celebratory aspects aren't as solemn as perhaps they should be, but I guess having come together for dawn services, it is a social occasion like any other.

I've taken part in a few dawn ceremonies and the attitude of remembrance is still there. Mr Holden's piece argues that the day should be replaced by something less jingoistic and more focused on the horror of war, but I'd say that focus still exists, and regardless of what you do it's still going to become a social occasion, and I don't think we should necessarily fight against that. It's what brings people out, and it's what makes these remembrance ceremonies endure - we're seeing record crowds.

With that being said, as other posters have mentioned, it could be used to market the concept of war and joining the military... but I don't see a great deal of that, save for a degree of glorification of combat - but really, if people aren't able to see through that and exercise a degree of common sense, then they'll be suckered in by defence advertisements anyway.

Paul L.

I am fully aware that the word "teenager" only came into being post WW2. However, like many words and phrases which did not exist pre-1914-18 ( conchie, friendly fire, ethnic cleansing) it is part of our vocabulary to-day, used to denote states which DID exist at the time. In this case the state of being between the ages of 13 and 20. My point - which I thought I had made clear - was to highlight the fact that those to whom we refer, in abstract, as "men" were in fact still under the age of 21. A fact which a walk through a war graveyard easily confirms; and which pertains to most wars.

As to these kids being "more mature"? I consider that statement somewhat facile. Most of them, if unmarried, were still virgins, lived at home, had never driven a car...their entire adulthood was still ahead of them. And most of them never got to experience it.

Who am I to judge them? Oh, for goodness sake, man! My whole point lies not in judging them but in condemning the fat-cats, civilians and propagandists who used them to their own ends.

I am the mother of two sons. I spent a large chunk of my life living in a war zone. I have been to far too many funerals and remembrance services (that was when they couldn't find enough bits of the boy to scrape them up and bury them) and have dealt with far too many young guys in psychiatric wards to find war honourable. I have also been the friend, lover, teacher and comforter of far too many civilians maimed, raped, killed and driven insane by war to ever think we should gloss it over with sentimentality

The author should be commended for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
The invasion at Anzac cove was a monumental failure, with the most remarkable thing about it being the relative success of our withdrawal.

Anzac day used to consist of marches and solemn memorials but over the past decade has morphed into a forum for grandstanding and overt displays of shallow nationalism. We don't have a lot of history to celebrate; this particular incident has been commandeered by culture warriors.

As I overheard someone say last year..."Happy Anzac Day!"

mac,
My critisism of you is for raising the politics of war in the first instance. Anzac is NOT for that and never has been. Please read Izzo's post, on page 3, if you really want to know what Anzac day is about. Izzo is absolutely correct. Also consider carefully what Foxy had to say.

By all means discuss and debate the politics of war and stratagies, etc. but do not associate that with Anzac day. Anzac day is for paying homage to all those who have served our country. Remember the warriors not the politics of war.

o sung wu,
I am angry and embarrased by the conduct of some towards our Vietnam Vets. Those who acted so disgracfully should be really ashamed to say they are Australian. I just hope that at least some are remorseful and realize how idioctic they were. Please understand that they were few and that Vietnam Vets have our overwheming support and respect.

As with diggers of all eras, you blokes worked professionally and done us proud. The world wide respect for our diggers is not without reason.

mac,
My critisism of you is for raising the politics of war in the first instance. Anzac is NOT for that and never has been. Please read Izzo's post, on page 3, if you really want to know what Anzac day is about. Izzo is absolutely correct. Also consider carefully what Foxy had to say.

By all means discuss and debate the politics of war and stratagies, etc. but do not associate that with Anzac day. Anzac day is for paying homage to all those who have served our country. Remember the warriors not the politics of war.

o sung wu,
I am angry and embarrased by the conduct of some towards our Vietnam Vets. Those who acted so disgracfully should be really ashamed to say they are Australian. I just hope that at least some are remorseful and realize how idioctic they were. Please understand that they were few and that Vietnam Vets have our overwheming support and respect.

As with diggers of all eras, you blokes worked professionally and done us proud. The world wide respect for our diggers is not without reason.

Passy,

You aren’t just all those things, your thick as well.

On ANZAC day we honour and remember those who served and those who continue to do so in an AUSTRALIAN uniform. We don’t celebrate the Rum corps or the rest of Britain’s forces in Australia on ANZAC day.

There were very few wars with Aboriginal tribes anyway. Most destruction was wrought by disease and famine. In any case Aborigines central role in our Australian story is not forgotten. Recognition in the constitution is coming.

Aboriginal Australians are honoured on ANZAC day for their service to their country in uniform.

Passy >> “It wants to honour particular wars and make those kind of aggressive imperialist wars acceptable to future generations”

I wonder how it is you can call the First World War a war of imperialist aggression on our behalf. Or the second for that matter.

How do you reconcile this with the “Kultur” and ‘Lebensraum” cries of two German armies? How do you explain away the invasion of France and Belgium in the first war? How do you explain the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, France etc in the second war? These were wars against fascism. Particularly the second war. How can you condemn democratic countries for fighting fascism? Even the Soviets did it.

The idea that a defence force only ever fights in its own country is a fallacy that is attractive to the empty-headed. If Britain and Australia conducted the defence of our country on the back foot like that, we would have seen the whole world speaking German or Japanese.

Only a really narrow minded individual could fault our participation in WW1 and WW2.

BTW, if you read O Sung Wu’s comments you would have noticed that he actually was one of those blokes in the trenches.

And conscientious objector is Marxist speak for “COWARD” . You and your lot were hoping for a communist win but were only prepared to throw paint and abuse veterans whose boots you aren’t fit to lick.

For peace? I don’t think so. You just support the other side.

The article conflates pre-conceived notions.

Whether a collective identity is built on the war mongering of capitalist classes or the, ahem, gentile political rehabilitation of the Stalins and Maos of the world, the authors contention is a study in delusional non-sense.

Self identity is the stuff of 'delusion.' It is constructed on a base of self-deciet (delusion). None of it is real. It spawns all the ills of the 'world.' The grand delusion(s) of self identity (ego) is what causes wars in the first place. Its all the 'l, me, mine' stuff and the desire to give physical/tangible form to the imagined non-sense swilling about in our heads. For example, the act of material possession, ownership or control (direct or indirect), rationalised as 'me' (capitalism) or 'us' (socialism) is driven by the personal desire to give tangible permanence to our delusions. Grand folly and oh, so addictive.

The article's contention is propelled by ideology. Contradiction, rationalisation and self deceit are fundamental to developing and promoting ideology. The idea that war comes uniquely from the flavour of a (political) delusion (capitalism rather than socialism) is ironic, in an unconscious sort of way.

To seriously redress the root cause of the worlds ills, start by challenging the illusion of self identity and leave off the compounding effect of that non-sense by complicating it with mass projected, collectived delusions, like 'national identity' or 'nationhood.'

These socially codified delusions (class) are effective ways to keep people mired under the self imposed limitation of the comfortable lies that define social classification. Why subdue and manipulate people through coercion and violence when its so much cheaper and much more pervasive to get them to do it to themselves, by buying into class propaganda, with its attendant self-fulfilling 'us versus them' resentments. In this case, the contrived division of people along the lines of 'monied versus labouring' classes is very useful in the service of political agenda. All behind a veneer of care and compassion. Very cynical. Very typical.

If the current govt is any gauge, then this sort of thing is going to get worse.

I would suggest ,that on next year's Anzac Day ,the author of this piece ,read it out at the biggest memorial march.Particularly to the surviving members of the RSL.
[Deleted]

Hi there 'PASSY'...

You know you're correct. Upon reflection,I really am just a silly old 'fart' ! Anyway, I was a regular, so I really couldn't have qualified as a 'conscientious objector' even if I wanted too.

Look my friend, I'm not trying to pick a blue with anyone in this particular thread. Nor am I trying to deprecate or trivialize the personal views or arguements of those who possess a very different attitude or belief than myself.

What I am saying is that many returned men and women view ANZAC day in many different ways. Some of my former mates like to be 'loud'. And often become even 'louder' as they vainly attempt to accommodate even more refreshment as the day lengthens. Quite often, these blokes are simply trying to mask their inner feelings and even deeper emotions.

Then there's others, me included, who like to be left alone. Not wishing to seek the company of others (including spouses). Personally, I find ANZAC to be a wretched and sad day. As I said, I shun ALL company. But hey, that's me !

PASSY - It's not the veterans you should be targeting. It's their Governnment. The Vets. are merely the pawns of a much larger game indeed, and generally, the Vets. aren't even appraised of the rules.

One of the 'posters' herein, overheard someone wish another "... have a happy ANZAC Day..." (or similar words). I reckon that sentiment alone would manifestly reflect, how many people today would now view the occasion of ANZAC Day. That says it all?

TWO:


Bronwyn:"I stand by my words, Ginx, and won’t be intimidated by your bullying tone. I knew your comments were directed to someone else. The only reason I picked up on them and I am perfectly entitled to do so in an open forum,...."

"....specifically because I was addressing someone else."

Didn't you understand what I meant by specific??...?
OF COURSE it is an open forum. That's the reason I put the above,-as a RESPONSE to YOUR 'bullying'. If you choose to 'jump in so strongly' when I am addressing another poster, you earn the 'bullying tone',- but with a qualifier that it is specifically because I was addressing another poster-NOT making a general open post;-but a specific one...?

Have your dig by all means; but expect a response, OK?

(It did have one positive outcome. Mac had her excuse and you got a compliment!)
____________________________________

You (general) criticize those who instigated the day;-those who sleazily market it, and you want the whole thing 'demolished'. By doing that you remove the one day these poor sods have to remember their dead comrades and plain strut their stuff!

I know EXACTLY what 'you' are saying. I am saying that if you throw out the bathwater, you throw out the baby.

Leave them alone. It is ONE day for God's sake!
_________________________________________

Unfortunately, I now must add to this.

I recall Frank Gol referring to his distaste for the repeated reference to 'the Left' or 'the Right', (I agree, though I see the Conservative by far making such a references. The Left seem to be more sure of their ground...).

To take the view I have, well;-I must be on the 'Right' mustn't I?. How nice to get some endorsement therein. The automatic assumption and the so predictable rants against the Left,- include me!

I am a Socialist. A SOCIALIST. And I do not give a monkey's testicles whether that does not fit your view of my view!
_________________________

SO?....,who shall we have a go at now? We've got a whole year before we revisit this.

Ginx

I don't hate everything about Anzac Day and I don't necessarily want to get rid of it. I just hate the circus it's become and the way it affirms war. I'd like to see it become a day where we lay a wreath and honour the memory of all of war's victims. Forget the medals and the flag-waving. Remind each other of the horror of war and work towards ensuring we don't keep repeating the same old war cry. Let's dish up last night's SBS program "Gallipoli" each and every Anzac Day and make it compulsory viewing.

I have a lot of sympathy with socialist views. I'm probably one of the minority of posters here who will support your views in this area. I know cultivating alliances wouldn't be important to you, but there's really no reason for you to be jumping down my throat and blaring out things at me in capitals. For the most part I admire your posts and your posting spirit and have made a point of saying so at one stage on another thread. I'm not the enemy here, Ginx!

Yes, I agree, OLO does create some strange bedfellows at times! I've just found myself on the same side in a current debate as OLO's most strident religious fundamentalists! So I can relate to your musings concerning where you've positioned yourself on this particular thread! I guess it's further proof, as if any was needed, that no one controls your thinking!

david f

Thank you for your second history lesson! Much appreciated!

In this thread, two good points were made:

[1] We need Anzac Day because that is all we have.

[2] If we never had an Anzac Day but a Remember the Suffering and Waste Day we would never have been led by the nose into Vietnam and Iraq.

All European countries have a day like Anzac Day, when emotions equal to those we indulge in here are openly displayed and similar rituals performed.

Were it possible to remind the celebrants, just for once, of the atrocities that war inflicts not only to the young people who fight, but to those who just happen to be in the way of the armies, probably the drinks that follow the day would be necessary to drawn sorrow and regret.

Unless we are of clay

If it wasnt for our defence how would you be living, could be better than the dictatorship we have now.

Hows your mandarine, german, asian

maybe you prefer iraqi

Anzac day is about the spirit
To stand and fight even though it is bad
It is about standing up and fighting for ones rights
Its about what you would do to help others
Its about how far would you go to fight for freedom
Its about selflessness
Its about putting your body and beliefs on the line to fight for someone elses freedom.
Its about doing whatever it takes.
Its about rememberance of those who paid and are still paying for standing up for someone elses freedom and rights.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent
Ex Army

O sung wo. Thanks for the reply. My father was in the navy for twelve years. He never went to Anzac Day. Maybe that was because he had seen first hand as a child the devastating effect service in World wars One and Two had on my grandfather. And yes, my argument is with the state who send young men (and some women) to war for their own imperialist reasons. I am reminded of Eddie Ward, a former ALP Minister, who said of Menzies that his brilliant military career was interrupted only by war (or words to that effect.) (And by the way, I am an old fart too. These days we disguise it by calling ourselves grumpy old men.)

Ginx, when you say you are a socialist, you might like to explain your vision of society. This post is not the place for a debate about socialism so maybe one of us on the OLO left could write an article and begin the discussion.

Trade215 you talk about the delusional nature of class analysis but I am not sure where the class analysis is in this article. There is a fair amount in one the day before by John Passant. Maybe you were referring to that article? If so post it there.

TurnRightThenLeft you say Anzac Day is not about left or right, it is about remembering the fallen. Actually I think it is about left and right and my article the day before attempts to indicate why. Why were they the fallen? What was the nature of the war? What role did our troops play, why do we always fight overseas with our powerful friends in the main? Anzac day helps justify Iraq and Afghanistan. I know its more complex than that, but wars always are.

Paul L I love you. I am glad you can take time off from your busy psychiatric business to diagnose me, and for free. Let's talk doctor and patient next post.

Ginx,
you really should argue with the straw man "mac" that you have created, not me. I've explained what I mean by the term "British". Oh,I've heard English people describe Australians as "cowards" however, in reference to the the fall of Singapore, I won't forget that. I will not respond to any more of your offensive remarks, since you don't discuss the subject civilly. You make the error of believing that since we sacrificed so much in foreigners' wars it has to have been worthwhile and that they all value our contribution. What a fantasy!

Banjo,
the meaning of Anzac day is whatever we choose.

TurnRightThenLeft

You say that Anzac Day is just remembering those who have fallen. It remembers the fallen of particular wars, and only those in general from a particular side. Hence my question a little while ago about why not remember the fallen aboriginal resistance fighters (about 20,000 according to one estimate) who fought against our invasion of their land from 1778 to the 1920s. They shaped Australia too, and resisted heroically, but they are airbrushed out of official history because it challenges the rule of capital. They fought on the wrong side of the victors in the wars and don’t serve the propaganda purposes of the present elite who want to make foreign interventions like Iraq and Afghanistan acceptable.

Paul L

Clearly World War 1 was an imperialist world in which Germany and its allies tried to break out of the shackles of the world economy as currently then divided up. World War 2 continued that dispute, with an add-on that the other side was fascist. An old communist colleague used to say as a 16 year old he enrolled to fight fascism. As a twenty six year old he knew he had also helped British imperialism win, and lay the ground work for the expansion of US imperialism.
The war would have occurred who ever was in control of Germany because the forces at work - capitalist expansion through nationalist blocs – are intrinsic to the system and hadn’t been settled by World War 1.

Paul, if you want to know a bit more about the rise of fascism in Germany I suggest you read the writings of Trotsky on this from about 1928 on. Unlike Menzies and other ruling class twits he foresaw the dangers very early and his suggestion of an alliance between the social democrats and the communists (which Stalin in an act of historic criminality rejected) to smash the fascists before they came to power would have changed the course of history and perhaps avoided the war.

As the author says we need a day to recognise that war is the ultimate human failure.

Dear Passy,

Ruling class twits are ruling class twits whether they are named Menzies or Trotzky. The Kronstad sailors were assaulted by forces commanded by Trotzky and Zinoviev because they had the temerity to demand that Lenin keep his revolutionary promises. Then the Bolsheviks tried to paint them as tools of their enemies. My family came from Russia, In fact my uncle was a Bolshevik before the Bolshevik coup and was arrested by the czarist police. He left the USSR in 1921. After seeing what life under Lenin was like he was no longer a Bolshevik. Trotzky helped to put and keep a dictator in power. That's his claim to fame. Balbo and Strasser were also henchmen of dictators who helped put them in power. Trotzky was a brilliant man who might have done something worthwhile with his life, but he chose to support a one party tyranny with secret police, purges and and other apparatus of oppression. There is a nostalgia for dictators on both left and right.

The memory of the ANZAC ‘s has been desecrated enough in this thread. Please let them rest in peace.

Passy,

So you are actually going to pretend that the German invasion of France and Belgium in WW1 was actually a defensive act? It wasn’t their fault. Is that what you are saying? I know you hate to let the facts get in the way of your pet theory, but hey man, the rest of us live in the real world.

As for WW2. I studied history and politics at a University level so I’ve heard the rubbish that Marxist analysis comes up with. Clearly it excludes any possibility of individual responsibility. I don’t need any more Marxist “history” on that period; I am full familiar with it. But to suggest that WW2 is the fault of the Allies because of the Versailles treaty etc, is to completely lose the plot. That’s ‘blame the victim’ stuff and you guys would never stand for it in a domestic situation, unless of course it was a certain Lakemba Imam or his coreligionists.

Expansion of US imperialism. Do you mean spreading democracy and wealth throughout Europe and Asia, as in Germany and Japan. Two of the most wealthy and free countries on the planet, governed by their own people. If that is what you mean by imperialism then I think you need to recheck the dictionary meaning of the word. Or else find a new one for the 17th, 18th, and 19th century European inclination to empire building.

The world has moved on since the days of Marx, yet some people seem to doggedly cling to failed ideologies. Marxist analysis distorts the facts in order to fit the theory. The very notion that everything can be described in terms of the workers and the capitalists is so ridiculous that only the intellectually challenged can see any sense in it. The world is a vastly more complicated place than that. Seeing things in black and white is the ultimate indulgence of the faithful. It requires that you hand over your own powers of thought and comprehension in favour of faith in your declared belief system. Marxism is just another cult.

As a member of the peace movement, I’ve been monitoring blogsites over the last few Anzac Days of recent years. This year I have detected a noticeable surge in criticism.

The criticism is not so much directed at Anzac Day itself (although that is happening, too) - more the way it has been actively manipulated into a jingoistic occasion to serve dubious political and military agendas.

Hopefully, this is a healthy reaction against the Howard ‘silencing dissent’ era. Long-term, it will be interesting to see what eventuates under Rudd.

My father never attended an Anzac Day parade, although he wore his RSL badge on his suit lapel, he refused to have anything to do with the organisation.

He experienced first hand the atrocity that is war, he suffered all his life as a result. As someone previously pointed out, if Anzac Day truly become a remembrance of what war really is, then Australia would've not have blindly supported invasions into Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and all the rest.

Dad, may you rest in peace. I love you and miss you. For all that you returned from service a depressive and alcoholic you never raised your hand in anger to me, my sister or our mother. You truly learnt what being a pacifist meant. I am glad you haven't seen what a glorification of war that Anzac Day has become for so many people, people who have never heard a gunshot, let alone faced down the barrel of a gun.

I know you were a hero - even if no-one saw you, you remain one of the very best of the unsung heroes.

Passy,

the speculations about class possited relate to this article not the one you suggested. Respectfully, the nexus you draw between this and that appears to misrepresent, possibly as a result of assumptions driven by misunderstanding.

Nevertheless.

Class being an illusory social distinction (faulty perception that contrives apparent yet false divisions) , it essentially permeates all discussions about social phenomena, like war and the warring classes (voluntary and coerced) and their sponsors ('ruling' class). The claim of delusion relates to class itself, to the nature of classification of phenomena, rather than the analysis of the various classes. A bit like how ice is formed by low temperatures (delusion), rather than the flavour of whats being frozen (classification).

Hope this clarification assists.

Thanks for the advice and thread moderation.

Fractelle,

You are quite happy to honour your own war veteran. Yet you want to deny the rest of us this opportunity. Please point out for me which part of ANZAC day is the glorification part.?

Is it the dawn service when we remember those, like your dad, who served or who never returned? Or the parade when old soldiers get together and march in memory of their comrades in arms and in pride of their service?

Tell me how exactly is today’s ANZAC day different to those ten, twenty, fifty years ago?

We also need ANZAC day to let those who have stood tall in our nations’ service know that we remember and value their sacrifice, that they are part of us and have done nothing wrong; to combat exactly the type of ugliness that the so-called “peace-activists” perpetrated upon the Vietnam veterans. We should never forget the black hearts of those ugly Australians and never allow it to happen again.

SJF,

Every year, more Australians turn up at ANZAC day events like the dawn service at Gallipoli.

Those who attack ANZAC day today are the cultural warriors of the soft-left who’ll accommodate any barbarity as long as it’s foreign and culturally correct. It’s the self flagellating west-haters who still subscribe to the myth of the ‘Noble Savage’. Those who insist upon a negative view of our past based upon an appreciation of today’s “Politically Correct” values. You won’t find any of these armchair culture warriors criticizing the Wahabis for keeping women’s rights in the 8th century, but they’re happy to frame our remembrance of the fallen as “extremism”. You’ll find them silent when a leading university takes funding from foreign govt’s and their moderate student unions are being over-taken by terrorist sympathisers, yet they scream and wail about honouring those who served our country selflessly.

Truly, the soft-left have lost touch with reality. According to their bizarre ideology, it’s the democratic and liberal west which must be overhauled, not the dictatorships and theocracies of the third world.

Of course …, they’re foreign, they must be OK.

Hi there ** FRACTELLE **

I read and re-read your thread, apropos the difficulties your Dad faced when he returned from the war (WW 2 I presume ?).

You further stated that your Dad never supported the RSL albeit he wore the badge on his lapel. I suspect he wore the 'Returned from Active Service Badge', as opposed to the RSL badge that was issued by the League (RSL). The former was/is issued by the C'Wealth Govt. to all three services, provided you had seen 'Active Service' in a 'theatre of war'. It should be noted that there is a very clear defination of a 'theatre of war .

Anyway, that aside, your Dad was oh so typical of many returned men, and to a lesser degree women. Most returned home as mere shells of their former selves, and by and large were told to get on with life and they'll be right (usually by those who NEVER actually saw an angry man)

Both my Grandfather's (one was in the Boer war, and the other in WW 1 and he later became a TPI) were similarly so advised. I'm 65 years, and STILL attending the VVCS (Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service). So I know EXACTLY where you're coming from !

Accordingly, I really feel for you and yours FRACTELLE, absolutely ! Most of these individuals will never talk of the war or how it had affected them. Though their silence often speaks volumes.

Take care FRACTELLE.

Paul.L

For a person who claims to have studied history and politics at university level, which for most people is a humbling and mind-broadening experience, you certainly have maintained a narrow and unquestioning view of The West's place in history and the world today.

I'll ignore all the snide little references to the 'soft-left' etc which do nothing to advance the debate and only serve to highlight the paucity of your argument. But I object strongly to conscientious objectors being labelled as 'cowards' and peace activists as 'ugly Australians'.

Contrary to your aspersions, these are perfectly legitimate and responsible positions to take and they are, as indicated by SJF's observations, gaining renewed ascendancy. People are increasingly weary of military solutions being the only on offer. There is a growing awareness that arbitration, negotiation and discussion are saner and safer alternatives to violence, war and killing.

Paul L wrote:

"Truly, the soft-left have lost touch with reality. According to their bizarre ideology, it’s the democratic and liberal west which must be overhauled, not the dictatorships and theocracies of the third world."

We should recognize torture and injustice wherever it takes place whether it is in the democratic and liberal west or the dictatorships and theocracies of the third world." It is not always the others who are in the wrong.

One excuse for injustice is, "Look how terrible the others are." The current president of the United States supports torture. He has tried to kill the International Criminal Court and the Law of the Sea which previous US administrations have worked to build up to reduce the chances for conflict and bring those who violate human rights and international agreements to account.

In democratic society one point of free speech is to call our own governments to account. Bronwyn has written well.

o sung wu

Thanks for the info about the badge. Yes, my father saw active service both in North Africa and in New Guinea. While I was writing the post I was trying to work out why he wore the badge but had no time for the RSL. And now I know. Thank you.

I have only the barest of fragments about my father's war experiences. He was highly intelligent and kind and he returned damaged. The person he could've been and the contribution he could've made wasted.

I understand the reasons for WW2. War is the last resort and should have remained a last resort. Pre-emptive strikes have made a mockery of that.

Paul L - I found your post insensitive in the extreme - every Anzac day I cry (as do so many others) for my father and the loss of so many innocent people; men, women and children. I will continue my father's tradition of not marching in the parade.

Participating in the parade was an idea I had been considering for a few years. However, after writing my posts here and reading yours, I will not add to the glorification of war by my presence. I will comment where I deem it prudent and necessary as I have today. At least I have had some clarification on my ambivalence towards Anzac Day. We need a national day of acknowledgement of the futility of war, then maybe, we will learn again that war is the last resort.

To those who somehow pretend that Anzac Day is not, at least in part, a glorification of war, we only had to see the advertisement at the end of the SBS Anzac Day documentary. Yes, you can buy war CDs, war dramas on TV are always popular, there are picture books, toy soldiers, all sorts of war memorabilia... you name it.

How many peace loving parents have been disconcerted to see their own little 6-year-old playing with guns.

Let's face it, we blokes have testosterone circulating in their biochemical system. I know all about it, I am one of them. Fighting between tribes and nations has been going on for as long as human societies have existed. Blokes love war just as lions like to kill zebras.

Of course we are shocked and crippled by wars that go wrong and when our comrades die in battle, but (in general) that's a small price to pay for the zest and glamour that also goes with warfare. The bloodshed doesn't stop us clamouring for yet another war.

Make no mistake, ANZAC Day is a display of our natural aggression and our love for the spirit of warfare.

That's not to say nothing can be done about it. We also know that there is a wide variety of cultures in the world - some far less aggressive than others. We have plenty of scope to choose the society we want. We can do things that stimulate peace, and we can do things that stimulate aggression.

ANZAC Day could serve to do either, depending on how it is played out. Unfortunately, its key focus has been a subliminal glorification of war, and this is not about to change.

Paul L

‘…to combat exactly the type of ugliness that the so-called “peace-activists” perpetrated upon the Vietnam veterans’

Serious analysis of this scenario has shown it to be an urban myth. The most common version is the one about Vietnam Vets being spat on.

One article about this is here: http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=215

‘Every year, more Australians turn up at ANZAC day events like the dawn service at Gallipoli.’

True. But it’s naïve to believe that the massive investment by the Howard government to promote and expand the Anzac commemoration tradition (to the point of it becoming a major industry in its own right) has had nothing to do with it.

'To those who somehow pretend that Anzac Day........' (Quote: Ghetto)

I don't 'pretend' anything, you pusillanimous little rrrrrsole!

I will return to answer every post that contained my name domani.

I can only manage to put the rubbish out today.

gecko, Sunday, 27 April 2008 6:59:00 PM: "How many peace loving parents have been disconcerted to see their own little 6-year-old playing with guns."

Goodness gracious gecko, what could be wrong with that?

I come from a farming family that has long been into shooting sports, harvesting from the land (no added chemicals) and conservation hunting. None of that makes us favour war, quite the opposite in fact.

Gun owners have to be upstanding members of society without criminal records just to get their licences. The licensed firearms owners I know are normal husbands, wives, teachers, doctors, mechanics and so on and they would all be horrified to be stereotyped as war hawks.

Such stereotyping does you and your argument no credit at all.

There is nothing wrong with the celebration of war. And fighting. And guns. Nothing. The only problem is, when people do not consider the effects of war and waste lives and precious resources on such stupid enterprises. Anyone who supports (or supported) the Afghanistan or Iraq wars are fools and idiots. Just look how much we are paying for petrol.

<< Blokes love war .>>

<<zest and glamour>>

<<natural aggression and our love for the spirit of warfare.>>

Dear_GECKO..I disagree.

There was only sadness and solemnness, and many tears, lumps in throats, human compassion and love which I saw and experienced.

Zebra's and Lions? good grief. Man you r deluded. I'll grant you one thing, if you applied that to the exploits of one Kalid Bin Al Waleed in the 7th centry, you would be right. He was the senior general of Islam, and it is from HIM that we hear the saying "We love death as you infidels love life". War of agression and acquisition of territory andbooty, including human beings, was applauded and approved of in that particular stream of history.

In our ceremony, 2 silloueted soldiers were placed either side of a white cross.Lest we forget was printed on the cross. The symolism has the following meaning.

-CROSS self sacrifice for a greater cause. Theologically, it was Christ thinking of us, rather than Himself, "I came.. to give my life as a ransom for many"

-SOLDIERS
Practically in the war context, the theological, connects to we giving our lives, to ensure freedom for our loved ones and fellow citizens.

The mixing of the 2 symbols, Cross and Soldier, to not naturally go together. Christ went to the cross in peace, and did not use violence or war to prevent this. Soldiers on the other hand, do that very thing.

So, there is a contradiction in symbolism if the full meaning of each is explored.

Perhaps the Cross at Anzac day services is saying:
"We have a Christian heritage, which includes the idea of self sacrifice, it is worth defending militarily" ?

Personally, I don't really like the Cross being closely associated with war. The Crucifixion of Jesus was violent enough.

There is, however nothing wrong with remembering our fallen comrades, who gave their lives for our freedom. It is also 'ok' to glorify genuine heroism in such defense. It is NOT 'ok' to glorify violence for it's own sake.

Agreeing with something that Boaz says happens so infrequently that I have to mark it, even though I don't have a great deal to add to the story.

>>There is, however nothing wrong with remembering our fallen comrades, who gave their lives for our freedom. It is also 'ok' to glorify genuine heroism in such defense.<<

That's the reality. We owe them, big time.

But on the broader question, it also might be useful to ponder the difference between our own celebration of ANZAC day with similar ceremonies held in Europe, where the fighting actually took place, and where countries were actually occupied by the enemy of the day.

On a spectrum that stretches from sombre reflection on the futility and misery of war, to the glorification of war and those who take part, I would suggest that we are at the opposite end to the Europeans.

Bronwyn,

Only the very sheltered would find university humbling. I have examined the arguments of the left, indeed I once believed in them, which is why I am now such a strident critic. All of the learning I did at uni except for my engineering degree was heavily slanted by leftist ideas. It took me a while to realize that they weren’t teaching without bias. More importantly however I have come to see the myriad of failures that leftist policy has championed.

I see those who blindly follow the lefts PC agenda as narrow minded and unthinking.

As regards the “peace activists” I was referring to their behaviour during the Vietnam conflict, in particular their disgusting behaviour towards veterans.

Fractelle

I found your original post very insensitive, especially in light of the fact that you were happy to honour your own veteran in whatever manner you pleased. Yet you wish to deny the rest of us the same right.

You didn’t, or more likely couldn’t, provide me with any evidence of how exactly ANZAC day today is any different to years ago.

SJF,

Just ask an Aussie veteran how they were treated when they got back. Rather than link me to some rubbish American Veterans against war site. Veterans on this very thread have been subject to the disgusting abuse by the “peace activists”. And these “peace activists” were the ones singing “Ho, Ho, Ho, Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh will win” not give peace a chance.

I’m a passionate but amateur military historian and there are literally dozens of accounts of Aussie soldiers coming back from Vietnam and being abused in the most appalling manner. It is undoubted that the so called “peace activists” blamed soldiers for the war and reacted accordingly. The favorite quote of the easily led and the unthinking was that the soldiers were “baby killers”

On an interesting side note, it’s funny that these anti American types jumped on an American bandwagon in the manner and style of their protesting.

My problem with Anzac Day is the I am supposed to "remember our fallen". I do not remember anyone. As a migrant it was not my country they were defending, claiming to defend nor was it my Empire, "the past is foreign country". Another thing is that no one was defending my (future) freedom because looking back I was inevitable but looking forward from then I was an extremely improbable event disruptable by any past event no matter how trivial.

Nor do I believe that soldiers fight for freedom or any other particular cause, they fight whom, when and how they are told to do their beliefs are purely coincidental. They, in short, obey orders. Nor are they particular paragons of virtue but a pepper and salt mixture of good and evil.

I suppose the real problem with Anzac Day is that war tends to be controversal, and if it was not it deserves to be. Controversy tends not to unite but polarize. Not a good day.

PaulL."The favorite quote of the easily led and the unthinking was that the soldiers were “baby killers”"

A lot of them were baby killers. It was an apt description. Not all soldiers were like this, but at the end of the day, the war was one of choice, not necessity and the people there were being slaaughtered by foreigners.

Brian Holden et al :

I have analysed the For and Against arguments of Brian Holden's epic : " it is time Anzac Day was replaced ".

As a whole, counting the number of repeats, rejoinders and repartee's, some of the contributors made to reinforce their arguments, the final judgement is as follows:

. 75 % referred to Gallipoli as the main reason for Anzac Day

. 50 % claimed Anzac Day stood for the glorificatrion of War

. 50 % claimed they were right about their " facts ".

. 30 % reffered to Australian servicemen as ' supermen'.

. 16 % brought ' conscientious objectors / ugly australian into the debate

. 16 % were offended at the reception afforded soldiers returning from Vietnam.

. 16 % brought Religion into the debate.

. 13 % brought Indigenous cause / people /contribution into the debate.

. 12 % argued combatants of WWI were only teenagers and therefore immature.

. 12 % were ambivalent.

. 12 % stated there was no ambiguity

Note: OLO has achieved it's purpose. It stirred a hornet's nest. Pity we will have to wait another 12 months to vent our spleen.

Jacinta

I've stayed out of this thread, having said what I wanted to say about Anzac Day on the thread about John Passant's article. However, a couple of corrections are in order:

Boazy - while I'm sure you were delighted that the Dawn Service you attended was conducted in front of a Christian cross, this is in fact quite atypical. Most Anzac Day dawn services are conducted at cenotaphs, which have no religious connotations.

Paul.L - Anzac Day ceremonies are more elaborate nowadays than they used to be: "In more recent times the families and young people have been encouraged to take part in dawn services, and services in Australian capital cities have seen some of the largest turnouts ever. Reflecting this change, the ceremonies have become more elaborate, incorporating hymns, readings, pipers, and rifle volleys."

http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.asp

Personally, my favourite part of Anzac Day is playing Two Up, but it appears I'm the only one at OLO to have mentioned it.

It’s funny that the multiculturalists feel it’s OK for foreign born or minority sections of the community to have events which aren’t exactly inclusive, yet they’ll happily try and stop ANZAC day. You can always find support from the left for the smallest minority event, but anything that you average Australian reveres, is trashed.

Fire twirling, basket weavers learning pole dancing while knitting? Right on, let find them some funding. Remembering the hundred odd thousand war veterans who fought and died in our name. No way.

Robert

You say >> “As a migrant it was not my country they were defending, claiming to defend nor was it my Empire”

Well if you’re not an Australian you don’t have to pay your respects. But if you are an Australian, then you should know that it is this country they were fighting for.

You say >> Soldiers etc“Nor are they particular paragons of virtue but a pepper and salt mixture of good and evil”

Exactly in the measure that we are, in the general community. They are us. They are our fathers, uncles, brothers and sisters etc with the added courage that it takes to serve.

Steel,

That is the ugliest thing I have heard anyone say on OLO. I hope you are proud. So you know these babykillers yourself? You heard plenty of stories of Aussie soldiers gutting babies? I’d like to see your evidence for this. Presumably you have statistics for the number of babies the Australian soldiers killed?

Its phenomenal how people who have no idea about what they are talking about feel they have the right to cast aspersions like this on the 50 odd thousand people who served Australia in Vietnam.

Put up some evidence or crawl back into your hole you ugly excuse for a human being.

To the rest of the anti-soldier lobby,

“ People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell.

Too few of the soft lefties on this thread understand this.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell.

Is that it? Is there nothing else? Do we sleep better because (eg) there's a sh*tfight in Iraq right now? There's no anti-soldier lobby Paul. There are those who push for war and those who resist it. Few if any of these brothers, fathers, sons etc. would push for violence. Ask any veteran if they'd opt to do it all again. The insane ones would say yes.

Yeah well. "If soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army."
Frederick the Great.

So many great posts here! I wish I could address them all. Suffice to say …

Ginx

Old socialist saying: ‘A bayonet is a blade with a worker at each end.’

Gecko

You are an old and wise soul.

Bronwyn

‘I don't hate everything about Anzac Day and I don't necessarily want to get rid of it. I just hate the circus it's become and the way it affirms war.’

That's an all-important distinction that pro-Anzac believers either can’t or won’t see. Large public commemorations are, by their very nature, affirming. The larger they are, and the more public – the more the affirmation. This is what I have most disliked about the Anzac commemorations of the Howard years.

Jacinta

One statistic you didn’t include was the percentage of posts that criticise the way Anzac Day is handled by the media, churches, military, governments etc, rather than the Day itself.

'Pity we will have to wait another 12 months to vent our spleen.'

I guess that's why they call it 'the one day of the year'.

** STEEL**

You reckon that babies were mutilated in Vietnam by allied troops ?

Where is your evidence ? Who did you serve with, and when ?

I'm a Veteran, and I admit, there are many atrocious incidents that occur in a war zone. Many civilians were casualties. Explosive ordnance does not have the capacity to delineate between friend or foe.

However, in my two tours, I did not see ANY EVIDENCE of unlawful or wilful killing of children, let alone babies. I'm aware that some young people tried to detonate grenades and other IED's in our presence and they were subsequently stopped.

** STEEL ** If I were you I wouldn't want to make those sort of accusations or claims around the Vietnam Vets that I know, lest you experience a fairly 'lusty' response !

Getting over the war is hard enough without some individual comming along with claims that can't be proven. Believe me my friend, we ALL BLEED when we're cut.

Don't be alarmed by Paul L.'s deceptive post. In the entire context of the conflict and the subsequent media exposure of crimes in the war, people were quite within their rights to be outraged and decry returning troops. Unfortunately many soldiers who had no part in such crimes necessarily must have felt victimised by the public.If they had any sense though they would've realised that their allies had degraded and destroyed the image of the soldier/army (if the entire war was not enough to do so at that point) and that the criticism wasn't directed at them per se, but what they represented.

Today this kind of publicity is why they conceal these crimes from the public and censor any media stories coming from conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

-=-=-=-
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/lai/dark_5.html

"“She came out of the hut with her baby and Widmer shot her with an M16 and she fell. When she fell, she dropped the baby and then Widmer opened up on the baby with his M16 and killed the baby too,”...

Another soldier, Pfc. Varnado Simpson, shot a woman, a baby. Afterwards, he went into a kind of shock. “The baby’s face was half gone, my mind just went…and I just started killing. Old men, women, children......"

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/myl_bvillagers.htm

"Phuong Thi Moi, 13, and Do Thi Man, 12, were found inside their homes lying naked, their vaginas appearing to have been
savagely ripped open. . .

Do Thi Nguyen, aged 10, was found in Ba Xam's house by her mother, Pham Thi Day, a 45 year old widow who survived
the killings. When Do Vien examined the little girl's body he could clearly see her clothes had been torn off. Her vagina had
been ripped and there was blood all over the area."

-=-=-=

These crimes are by soldiers of the United States of America (further, the elite governments often describe as exemplary), educated in western, democratic society...and disgustingly celebrated and protected there even after these crimes became public (by people such as PaulL.). These crimes could easily never have been reported.

CJ.... your point about the usual symbolism being a cenotaph.

I don't really have any difficulty or disagreement with that. As I said..this was my first ever personal involvment in an Anzac day march/proceedings. I certainly don't extrapolate the symbolism of the one I attended to all, as I just didn't know.

My comments were related to the one I saw.

As I explained, the Soldiers with guns on either side of the Cross, has contradictory overtones. Yes, they are both about sacrificial deaths, but no, they are not the same type of death. Jesus died as follows:

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Thats more than a bulls roar from the military reality of blazing guns ,thrusting bayonets,dropping bombs and mangled bodies.

I absolutely choked up, when I said to my mate there, "no greater love does a man have than to give his life for his friend" It has meaning for both Christ's death and those of our soldiers.

P.S. come back 2 my "blog" :) and see if you can add anything to the "knowledge" bit k? ask around ur friends, its a secular thing (my last post there)

WAIT!.!.!.! ... "Pericles agreed with me?" ...Miracles are still with us :)

Steel,

This is a discussion about ANZAC day, and I was clearly referring to Australian soldiers. Yet I see you have not come up with any evidence of Aussie involvement in the deliberate killing of children. You have even heard from a veteran who was there.

All you could come up with is two accounts of the same massacre at My Lai committed by one small unit of the Americal division. You know so little about the subject that you didn’t even know you were referring to the same massacre.

You have defamed the 50,000 Australians who served in Vietnam. You should now apologise. It’s absolutely no different to me saying that the members of your family are all child molesters.

You say “Unfortunately many soldiers who had no part in such crimes necessarily must have felt victimised ”

They were victimized by the easily led, so called “peace activists” who mimicked the cries of their American counterparts. That they never had any evidence of any wrongdoing by Australian soldiers is without question. Yet they persisted in these outrageous tactics of guilt by association.

Further, Lieutenant Calley (US Army Americal division) and his company were punished for their abhorrent actions. Many of them were sent to jail.

Let me just give you an idea of the enemy they were fighting.

The Viet Cong were responsible for, among other things,

The massacre at Dak Son where a village of 2000 Montagnard tribesman was attacked by 600 Vietcong with 60 flamethrowers. All told, 252 of the unarmed Montagnards had been murdered and another 100 kidnapped; 500 were missing, either dead or fled into the hills. Nearly 50 were wounded, 33 with third-degree burns over up to 20% of their bodies. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837586-2,00.html

The massacre in Hue where 3000 civillians were tortured and murdered over a period of a couple of weeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hue

The assassination of 33, 052 village officials and civilians during the war.
http://www.montagnard-foundation.org/opinion.html

Maybe you should read about the misreporting of those western journalists who purported to believe in peace but who actually wanted a communist win in Vietnam
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1977/08b.html

Comparing JC's death with that of a soldier is false, DB. A large proportion of the armed forces - ours and other's - simply like shooting guns at people.

I have little time to spare for OLO at the moment, but hey!; sometimes one just has to make the time.
SO.......

Mac-

Interesting analogy, strawman/mac. OK. by me;-it fits..
I have little doubt that YOU would know people who think that Australian troups were ' cowards', I don't mix with such people. There are hero's AND cowards in every group. I have no time for people who condemn entire groups....
...curious to know why you felt the need to turn my question right around though? Is that a way to avoid answering my question?

You took this thread subject and used it to spew your anti-Brit bias. At least be honest about that.
________________________________________

Bron-

I dare say we will agree on many things;-we will disagree on others. It matters little to me whether I'm endorsed or vilified. It would not influence my opinion in the next post that I make. You and I disagree in our view on this subject., and IF you address me, particularly in a negative manner;-I will respond;-caps or not. (On that topic I will give an impacted wisdom tooth for an italics facility--PLEASE GY).
Given the way we both tend to think, we will agree elsewhere!
___________________________________________

Passy-

I'm doing this post as a job lot, so I am responding to you here.
I have understood from the getgo what the argument was against ANZAC day, I'm not a fool.
I don't care.
I could flesh that out, but I don't have the time or inclination. OLO posters at times (in MY view),- will use their striking intellect to analyze and rationalize black into white!

Old men/women march with pride for their fallen comrades, and their own role in a hugely traumatic period of their lives.

That's it for me. That's it.

PS: Pass,- I won't get into any in-depth discussion about my Socialist beliefs;- the basis of Socialism et al.

I am. I believe. That also is it.

Hi again - * STEEL *,

I see you've cited a number of instances allegedly involving US troops unlawfully killing innocents and particularly babies.

I wasn't aware that you were referring to the alleged abuses and actions of American soldiers in SV.

I have no information that either supports or rebuts your assertion.

STEEL, I can only state herein that:

(i) To my knowledge NO AUSTRALIAN soldier EVER engaged in conduct of a kind, that could only be described as evil and a war crime; and

(ii) War is a filthy and disgusting business ! Events that you've described and alleged in this 'post', may have occured, I don't know. Dreadful things happened in Vietnam.

Post an ambush, very young NVA 'kids' (15/16 years of age) butchered by 'claymores' (ours), and when we searched their bodies for 'product', often revealed small photos and treasured items and letters etc. ostensibly from their NOK. No wonder Aussie Vets returned home with 'f....d' minds and damaged personalities.

I guess we all had blood on our hands. It's no wonder we were often described as 'headshots' !

Steel wrote,

"Further, Lieutenant Calley (US Army Americal division) and his company were punished for their abhorrent actions. Many of them were sent to jail."

Calley was the only one who served any time in jail for the massacre. Apparently the investigation stopped at Calley and did not go higher up. He was released without serving his full sentence. The army tried to cover up the entire incident, but a helicopter pilot blew the whistle and exposed the crime. A New York Times reporter wrote a story on it. We don't know how many atrocities were successfully covered up.

My Lai was a war crime. If a similar incident had been carried out by the Germans in WW2 the penalty at the Nuremberg trials would have been much greater,

My cousin was a US Air Force major in Vietnam and planned to stay in the military. He quit in disgust at the US actions. The US and Australia were fighting people who didn't want them in their country.

Those incidents are not 'alleged' o sung wu. They are absolutely factual, right down to the slashing of the vaginas and shooting the babies of Vietnamese mothers in the head (by christian soldiers from the USA).

Paul L. If you actually read my quote, I attributed nothing to Australian soldiers nor individuals of the army, though I have little doubt that some of them were war criminals from a probabalistic perspective. To think otherwise is naive or is deliberately tendentious.

If you actually cared for argument, rather than some idealistic mytholgising about the 'purity' of the Australian soldier in Vietnam, you would have noted that in (my last post) I wrote the Australian people were quite within their rights to jeer the troops, if they felt the desire to. And the soldiers were quite within their right to believe the words, or to recognise that they were talking about their allies and what the war represented.

Your talk of slander is more than ironic considering your categorical statements about "left-wing" Australians of the time, attributing those words to all of them. What citations did you provide for such claims? None.

For the record I know both quotes were from the same incident. Why did you assume I did not? This was also one of MANY incidents of similar nature. My Lai was merely the high profile one.

PaulL.>"Further, Lieutenant Calley (US Army Americal division) and his company were punished for their abhorrent actions. Many of them were sent to jail."

At least you've now provided me with a falsehood that indicates beyond question your high level of bias. And you call yourself an historian. No, you are nothing more than a western apologist:
-=-=-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai#Cover-up_and_investigations

"In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction."
-=-=-
And his sentence was reduced from life to 4 months.

Back onto Australian soldiers, it appears Australian soldiers executed wounded Vietnamese soldiers on many occasions. http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s319013.htm

STEEL

Look my friend, I'm certainly not going to argue the toss with you.

You seem to harbour a very overt abhorrence and loathing for Veterans of the Vietnam War, per se. I have no idea why ? Nor am I in any sort of position to dissuade you from the palpable malevolence you bare towards Vietnam Vets.

Sir, I don't know your age or circumstances etc..in fact I know nothing about you. Surely though, you don't direct your venom towards ALL soldiers who fought in SV ?

I realize there are some in our community with your intractable attitude, and that's sad. However, I'd bet you never served there.

You'd never had the opportunity to have known and experienced the very close bonds and friendships that were forged in such an hostile and inhospitable environment. We all went over there as fit young blokes. Though nearly all of us returned, as much older men.

STEEL, you can flounder in your own venom and enmity. Where you can continue to luxuriate with your occupation of 'sniping' at Veterans of the Vietnam War.

Myself, I'll take the immense comfort of being with my dearest and closest mates and in whose hands I'd willingly entrust my life.

Steel,

We were talking about ANZAC day and Australian troops. I actually asked you to find evidence of baby killing by Australian troops. You found none. I also said that there was no evidence, yet the "peace protesters" still abused returning soldiers.

You said “in the entire context of the conflict and the subsequent media exposure … people were quite within their rights to be outraged and decry returning troops”

I don’t mythologize; I’ve read the books and listened to accounts of Australian soldiers returned from Vietnam. I’ve read the books by journalists who were actually with the troops, rather than sitting in bars in Saigon regurgitating their preconceptions.

I don’t pretend that every single soldier behaved impeccably. But the vast majority did.

From a probabilistic perspective someone in your extended family is a child molester but I wouldn’t use that to accuse you of it, or your whole family for that matter.

I know you either a) didn’t know you were quoting the same massacre or b) were attempting to suggest that it was more than one incident that you were referring to. Why on earth would you reference the same event twice? Especially when you were trying to suggest that this was somehow widespread.

In any case, that is a US issue. None of our soldiers were involved. You did not come up with ANY evidence of baby killing by Australian forces. So calling the lot of them baby killers is not only slander, it is in extremely poor taste.

And it gets worse. You say “it appears Australian soldiers executed wounded Vietnamese soldiers on MANY occasion” yet you have provided a link to ONE, UNCONFIRMED, report of two Vietcong prisoners allegedly killed by Australian, or is it NZ troops.

I must apologize regarding Lieutenant Calley etc. I knew that many had been charged but I wasn’t sure if they were all convicted.

You should apologize for the fact that you have very little knowledge of the history of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam and that you have maligned the reputations of a lot of good men.

I have no need to apologise. You're misrepresenting my words and have been from the start. I quoted on one specific claim from a general perspective of the war and the allies. Yes your context was different, but I was selectively commenting/quoting on the "baby killer" claim as it applied to allied forces. If you can understand that miscommunication I do not need to quote some of your other claims about what i said.

Paul>"I also said that there was no evidence, yet the "peace protesters" still abused returning soldiers."

And I then provided an explanation of the public and it's reactions to the media, which I still believe were acceptable and within reason based on that context. Note, I never said I thought their words were correct...or accurate when applied to random individuals.

Paul>"So calling the lot of them baby killers is not only slander, it is in extremely poor taste."

I did not (as explained above). I also never claimed it applied to a whole group, ("a lot of them [allied soldiers] were...A lot were not").

On the executions... this single report was of one incident, but there is a wider context of behaviour hinted at. This is from that link:
=-=-
"JOHN MOLLER: .....I don't think it was all that uncommon in Australia - well in Vietnam I should say. You know, we have heard in recent times of Australian veterans who are quite open about despatching wounded Vietcong after various battles"
=-=-
So, indeed it does "appear" that on "many" occasions Australian soldiers did do this, based on this interview.

Steel,

You whine that I misrepresented your words, and then you say it again.

You say>> “ I did not (call them baby killers). I also never claimed it applied to a whole group,"

but then you say >> "("A LOT OF THEM [ALLIED SOLDIERS] WERE...”"

No steel, You haven’t provided any evidence that Australians were involved in “killing babies”. There isn’t any. So the Allied bit is nonsense.Yet you persist in slandering these people. It’s just like me saying the socialists are torturers, murderers and rapists because in some places Socialists have done those things. You haven’t even provided evidence that “A LOT” of Americans were involved in this type of behaviour. Out of over 3,000,000 US servicemen in Vietnam you have noted that 100 of them were involved in a massacre. That is 1 in 30,000 who were murderers. Thats exactly 0.0033 percent.

On the evidence you have provided to us, all you can say with ANY justification is that ONE company of AMERICAN soldiers committed a massacre in a Vietnamese village. That’s it. Nothing about Australians except for an allegation of execution of wounded prisoners. And a suggestion that it was not the only incident. I can find you people who are prepared to suggest that the US uses area 51 to store its UFO’s. Finding someone who will make a claim is not evidence of anything.

Talk about hearsay. Conviction by association seems to be a common method of all supporters of the left. It’s so hypocritical of people like you to whinge that Haneef was convicted by association and yet you are happy to do the same thing to 50,000 Australians you have never even met.

Finally the fact that there never was any evidence of Australian troops killing babies didn’t stop peace activists from labelling them as such. It was a despicable act and it is one reason why many of those who are against the war today are still prepared to support our troops.

Paul.L

"Talk about hearsay. Conviction by association seems to be a common method of all supporters of the left."

This was rather a stupid statement to post. On the basis of an argument with one or two leftists, you're making an accusation against "all supporters of the left". That in itself is a classic example of what you term in that very sentence "conviction by association". Talk about hypocrisy!

You're whole argument is pointless anyway. Of course no one has the evidence to prove all incidents of atrocities committed by Allied soldiers. And you know that. It's not like there's a camera on every corner in a war zone.

There's enough irrefutable evidence regarding bad soldier conduct though to suggest to most reasonable people that our soldiers are not necessarily any more noble than any others when exposed to the brutality and chaotic savagery of warfare.

I told you Paul over and over again, that I selectively quoted that statement for a reason. I was challenging the claim in general as it applied to allied forces. I never said Australian soldiers did X, because I knew very well I was talking about My Lai in advance...duh. However I'm not so stupid as to claim they did *not* under any circumstances either. A tree still falls in the forest if no one is there to hear it. You act like it doesn't.

"You haven’t even provided evidence that “A LOT” of Americans were involved in this type of behaviour."

A lot is an unspecified number. A lot to me includes all those cases that weren't reported and there were many. Don't forget the indiscriminate bombing of Laos and Vietnam, plus the chemicals sprayed all over their fields, wilderness and river systems.

>"On the evidence you have provided to us, all you can say with ANY justification is that ONE company of AMERICAN soldiers committed a massacre in a Vietnamese village."

There were many similar incidents in other conflicts and battles. Go read wikipedia, with it's citations (i said something like this earlier...ffs).

>"Nothing about Australians except for an allegation of execution of wounded prisoners."

You are questioning the word of an Allied New Zealand soldier (or whoever he is) and those of other Australian veterans he claims were "quite open" about these executions. You are turning on a New Zealand veteran to defend the Australian soldier, by suggesting he is a liar.

PaulL.>"Talk about hearsay. Conviction by association seems to be a common method of all supporters of the left."

And what of your attack on this New Zealand Ally and Veteran? Is that typical of partisans like you?

I never claimed Australian soldiers did anything, and never claimed any forces "all" did anything. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT.

Bronwyn makes a great point here as well you should read it.

PaulL.>"It’s so hypocritical ....yet you are happy to do the same thing to 50,000 Australians you have never even met."

See prior capitalisation. That's an asinine comparison that incidentally weakens your prior statement.

>"Finally the fact that there never was any evidence of Australian troops killing babies didn’t stop peace activists from labelling them as such."

Again, you provide no citations. You never proved who these activists were. You never interviewed them to see why they were speaking. I gave a reasonable explanation for their words, which you have read.

>"It was a despicable act and it is one reason why many of those who are against the war today are still prepared to support our troops."

Then you are despicable every time you attribute something to the "peace movement" or "supporters of the left". Also, you are writing a blank check for the troops.

I like that we have superior rules of engagement (to the USA). It makes me proud and able to support them at some level. However, it sickens me that this may be partly only for publicity reasons demonstrated by these actions:
-They censor media stories and actively suppress events/crimes with extreme enthusiasm and justification.
-They believe all the propaganda about the wars and their 'nobility' (if that improves their morale, so be it, but i dislike and can't respect people who lie to themselves and wilfully ignore facts)
- Their treatment by the media and PM can be ridiculous. it's almost always invariably propaganda and martyring the soldiers rather than solemn, unbiased recognition can turn my stomach.

Bronwyn,

I have had an argument with a lot more than one or two lefties.

If you don’t have any evidence of baby killing then accusing a large group of people of doing it is in very poor taste. Indeed it is slander.

There is not anywhere near enough evidence to suggest that “ a lot” of the Australian and New Zealand soldiers committed war crimes. In fact very, very few of the 50,000 Australians who served did commit war crimes.

In any case I have never claimed that our soldiers where more noble than any other nations soldiers. I have merely pointed out that in general they are fully deserving of the respect that we offer them on ANZAC day.

Steel,

This is what I said “ … there are literally dozens of accounts of Aussie soldiers coming back from Vietnam and being abused in the most appalling manner. It is undoubted that the so called “peace activists” blamed soldiers for the war and reacted accordingly. The favorite quote of the easily led and the unthinking was that the soldiers were “baby killers”

In your next post this is your first line. “ A lot of them were baby killers. It was an apt description.”

Go back and have a look if you want.

So enough with the pretense. No one even mentioned “allied soldiers” for a couple of posts. In fact your second reply specifically referred to American actions because you knew that there was no evidence of Australian wrongdoing in that respect. So give us a rest and just apologise. You absolutely did suggest that Aussie soldiers were “baby killers”. SO YOU CAN CAPITALISE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT. IT IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Australians mostly fought in Phuoc Tuy province. They were the only foreign forces responsible for the province from 1966 to 1971. The Australians approached the war in Vietnam in a manner very different to that of our allies. So to even imply that “what our allies did, we must have done” is so ignorant that it laughable.

That context was a miscommunication. You know, I did not read the rest of the paragraph...........LOL....................I specifically quoted a PART of your statement. And when I did so I had in mind Allied forces, specifically My Lai, which I KNEW were concerning Americans (is it logical that I would try to pass off the My lai massacre as Australian, when it's so obviously not?). I also knew that Australian protesters here probably had that event or a similar report in mind, which is why when you later raised the point about Australians i gave an explanation which i thought fitted the situation.

Now *if* it was black and white, I would have specifically said, "Actually a lot of Australian soldiers were..."or I would have quoted the whole paragraph"

Steel,

You’re still doing it.

You say “when I did so I had in mind Allied forces, specifically My Lai, which I KNEW were concerning Americans “

Just drop the Allied part. It isn’t justified. So apologise, you made a big mistake either way.

I knew the whole way along you were referring to May Lai as it was the most famous massacre of the war. There were of course much worse attacks by the Viet Cong in Hue and other places but they never received the same attention.

As for the protesters I don’t care if you give an explanation. That doesn’t make it right. They were, like you, parlously misinformed of the actual situation of Australian troops on the ground in Vietnam. So instead what they did was parrot insults they had heard from their American counterparts. Their behaviour in blaming the troops for the war was unforgiveable. There is no explanation that will make their behaviour acceptable. Just look at the damage they did. Shame on them. It took nearly 20 years before we could even welcome most of the poor bastards home.

The actions of vast majority of Australians soldiers in Vietnam were consistent with the protocols laid down in the Geneva conventions. To label them or accuse them of the actions of a few of their comrades is obscene. It is against natural justice to attribute the behaviour of a single person, or a small group; to the vastly larger whole.

I accept your point that not all protesters behaved in this manner. Certainly there were a lot who did.

“… the homecoming of Australian service personnel from Vietnam was … characterized by hostility and rejection. Returning veterans were frequently abused for their participation …” Journal of Traumatic Stress
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112594437/PDFSTART

Hi there PAUL L...

You're so right apropos the treatment we received when we were repatriated home. Even most of my 'former' mates viewed me with some degree of suspicion or reservation. Nothing was said mind you, it was more what I felt. I soon became somewhat 'tongue tired'. I felt like I was not actually part of, or included in our conversation.

Funnily enough, none of my friends (male or female) were interested in what I did 'over there' either ? Notwithstanding however, there were major demonstrations against the war occurring almost daily !

Strangely too, I found it particularly difficult talking to the fairer sex, I simply didn't know what to say to them !

I soon found the company of my friends (with a couple of exceptions) lacked a certain something. I sought my own company (and still do even now) most of the time. I felt deficient in some way (I've no insight or clue as to what?).

I guess I'd better shutup. This is an 'opinion forum' not an abridged version of 'This is your Life'.

In any event, I'm a relatively banal individual. An altogether ordinary sort of fella, in the greater scheme of things accordingly, I'm not a very interesting topic anyway !

PaulL.>"Just drop the Allied part. It isn’t justified. So apologise, you made a big mistake either way. "

I don't really need to respond, since my last couple of posts have already answered this. Besides I'm getting tired of your overweening impudence in asking for an apology.

O Sung Wu,

It seems clear that the cost of war is not only in the physical damage of the battlefield but extends well beyond that point.

I’m personally of the opinion that “welcome home” parades are vital to let diggers know that they are valued members of the community, that their sacrifices are accepted and honoured and that the tasks they undertook were on our behalf. To let them know that if anyone has blood on their hands, we all have blood on our hands. Instead, the so called “peace activists” drove a wedge between the community and the veterans. I think that this was appalling, both on behalf of the public, for allowing it to happen; and the “peace activists” for taking the easy target and shooting the messenger. (sorry about the mixed metaphors )

I have read a couple of accounts which have suggested that the Australian army circa 1945 would have needed 2 divisions to undertake the same work that the brigade-plus unit that was 1 ATF carried out. I think that the evidence suggests that the long periods actually in proximity to the enemy, that were not seen in WW2, has contributed to the higher rates of health issues in Vietnam vets.

I think we asked a lot of our Vietnam vets and they responded superbly. I think it is to our eternal shame that we were unable to properly repay this debt upon their return home. I think we broke the social contract that has always existed between a society and its soldiers. In the process we caused more harm to the people we should have been welcoming back into the fold.

The recent war in Iraq has showed up the need for specialist PTSD and trauma counsellors to help returned servicemen cope with the exceedingly high burden placed upon them. The overarching point they are trying to make to these new blokes is that getting help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of leadership and it’s a readiness issue.

o sung wu

You keep talking and don't apologize for a "This is Your Life" theme as a Vietnam Vet. "This certainly IS your life" the legacy of fighting in a war that wasn't ours.
The fact that it took 20 years for our Government to Welcome you and our boys back home - so shameful.
I have attended the dawn service in the city for thirty years.
Why do I attend? I wish to show respect and honour to my father (ww2)and all serving personnel who fought in any war for the freedom we have today. I also know personally several Vietnam Vets just like yourself who on Anzac Day wish to remain "silent", and have a quiet beer/ale by themselves.....as they continue to try and live one day at a time in coping with the trauma of losing mates and the destruction of human lives they witnessed.
o sung wu - you are correct when you say that no one who wasn't there can appreciate what you guys went through, I have heard many stories over the years all like your own.
o sung wu - stand tall in the knowledge that many people attend Anzac Day as a mark of respect for our diggers.....and not necessarily attend any church service.

One can appreciate the sacrifice and the sufferings of the veterans of any war. One can appreciate the sacrifice and the sufferings of the people in the territory where the war was fought. The fact that Australians suffered and died in Vietnam does not mean the war was justified or good. The Vietnamese who died fighting the Australians died for their country and were fighting on their own soil against the Australian and other invaders. Whenever there is a conflict between humans there are humans on all sides of the conflicts. In my opinion the sacrifice of Australian and Vietnamese lives was pointless. We can mourn all the dead regardless of what country they owe allegiance to.

Steel,

And I’m getting tired of the brain dead insistence that somehow you have shown that “allied” soldiers were involved in killing babies.

I’ve demolished your pathetic attempts to cover up your original error. It took half a dozen posts for YOU to accept what “YOU ACTUALLY SAID”. I’ll take impudence over intellectually challenged any day.

David F,

No one has suggested that because we lost soldiers that Vietnam was a “good” war. The point I have been making the whole way along is that just because you think the war was wrong doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t support our soldiers. If you want to be an internationalist and mourn everybody, that’s your right. But don’t try and tell the rest of us that we can’t honour our own.

You also forget to mention that hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese died fighting the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong. These people were also fighting for their country. Indeed the South Vietnamese were so happy with the Communists victory that 3 million promptly jumped into anything that floated, putting themselves in grave danger, to emigrate permanently.

The South Vietnamese weren't fighting for their country. This was an artificial construct, a regime propped up by the US. Why didn't the US allow elections to go ahead in 1956 across all of Vietnam? Because Ho Chi Minh would have won about 80 per cent of the vote.

I can't support Australia invading other countries, whether it be Sudan (1885), South Africa, Turkey, Europe, anywhere in Asia, East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Iraq or Afghanistan.

But in fact the idea that Australian soldiers were spat upon and so forth on return from Vietnam is a myth as far as I am concerned. The real villain here is the governments who sent these people overseas to invade foreign countries and then ignored them when they returned. There should be a huge increase in funding for counseling services and other support for World War II, Korean, Malaya, Vietnam, Iraqi and Afghan war vets. There won't be because it is not in the Government's interests to do so, and Anzac Day is a lot cheaper than real services for vets (or so their thinking goes.)

PaulL., Calling me intellectually challenged is ironic considering you've been shown to make regular technical errors in many article discussions, and are extremely biased. It's also ironic because i've explained the miscommunication in enough detail that you should have shut up about it. I've been through this Vietnam discussion before with you a few months ago and you persist in complete ignorance (or some kind of subconcious, partisan denial) of what I revealed in that discussion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
PaulL.> “You leftist simpletons prefer to ignore the fact that North Vietnam invaded the South.”

Steel>"You should learn about the conditions prior to the start of the war. The communists in the south would have been elected had not the election been rigged and the people defrauded. Secondly they suffered persecution and were executed by the government.

Steel>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Rule
From Wikipedia>“...Tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were committed on a daily basis. The death toll was put at around 50,000...”

Steel>the country was divided by a foreign international comittee and that the separation was to be temporary. Apparently the same party (Dinh Diem's) in South Vietnam that was responsible for executing communists by the thousand and which held a fraudulent election, cancelled the reunification elections scheduled by the 1954 Geneva Accords.

From Wikipedia > "According to the Geneva Agreements the country was divided at the 17th parallel into Ho Chi Minh's North Vietnam and Ngo Dinh Diem's South Vietnam after the example of Korea. This was intended to be temporary, pending an election in 1956, which never took place."
-=-=-=-=-=-=--==-

PaulL."If you want to be an internationalist and mourn everybody, that’s your right. But don’t try and tell the rest of us that we can’t honour our own."

DavidF. NEVER SAID YOU CAN'T. Unless there is some other quote of his you are referring to, or that you think the two are mutually exclusive (which would say more about your bias than anything you've said yet), you must be typically including anyone who disagrees with you to be in the same category.

Good evening All -

PASSY...

You've stated herein that the notion of Aussie Vietnam Vets. being abused and 'spat upon' by some members of the community, is a myth ?

It has not happened to me. However, it did happen to a mate of mine who was in my company whilst we were preparing to assemble for the ANZAC Day March in Sydney in the early eighties.

Further on the same day, post the march I was walking in the Sydney CBD with my first wife, on our way to the Bn. reunion. Two 'ladies' approached and felt the need to yell, and call me a 'child killer' (IN THE PRESENCE OF MY WIFE! !) in front of many members of the public ! At the time, I was a serving member of the police force.

I was so angry both with the spitting incident involving my mate, earlier in the day. And later, the abuse I received at the hands of these two 'ladies' - I was very nearly to the point of arresting both of these shameless protagonists ! I didn't naturally, (I was off duty) and I was there to commemorate the solemnity of ANZAC Day .

It certainly is NO MYTH PASSY .

DAVID F...

Everyone suffers in a war - nobody actually ever wins. The Vietnam War was a particularly filthy and disgusting episode in modern human history...ABSOLUTELY !

Passy

The spitting on our Vietnam Vets is certainly NOT a myth....have personally witnessed it and on several occasions.
During the Vietnam War years I was involved with our troops and the USA troops when they were on leave in Sydney.
A song written by the Animals "We've got to get out of this place" was sung on every occasion that the Aussies and the Yanks got together at gatherings.....all the Aussies wanted was to "come home" and stay home.....all the yanks wanted was to "go home".
I feel sure o sung wu would know the song also.
Every time I hear this song, I always remember our boys and the yanks joining arms in circles singing at the top of their voices and with tears in their eyes.....they just wanted to go home.
During these years I heard many stories of the destruction of human life, they didn't want to be there any more than our boys.
Since those years I still remain in contact with so many of these boys (now men) who try to live day by day.....the trauma of what they witnessed and experienced won't go away and hasn't for many of them.
Anzac Day should never be replaced, as it is a day of remembrance and a show of respect for all our serving personnel.

Steel

I’m sorry, I make regular technical errors?

You can’t even acknowledge the things you posted three days back. So just excuse me if I don’t take you too seriously.

You say >>” you persist in complete ignorance … of what I REVEALED”

I didn’t realize that you were the source of undeniable historical fact. Don’t tell me, you are a widely known and respected historian whose possession of the facts confounds even those who were there? Right? Steel the Revealer of truth. I love it.

You say >> “The communists in the south would have been elected had not the election been rigged and the people defrauded. Secondly they suffered persecution and were executed by the government.”

1) That’s exactly the same excuse the Russians used to invade Afghanistan.
2) When have you ever known communists to care at all about elections? Certainly they are almost NEVER voted out.
3) Those same South Vietnamese Communists never actually got into positions of power in the new communist regime. They were almost entirely ignored by the Northerners.
4) If persecution is your gold standard for intervention then Iraq should have had your full support

You say >>“...Tortures and killings of "communist suspects" were committed on a daily basis. The death toll was put at around 50,000...”

During one month the NVA executed as many as 6000 civilians in Hue city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF
The Dak son massacre where a village of 2000 Montagnard tribesman was attacked by a NVA/VC force armed with 60 flamethrowers. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837586-2,00.html
The NVA/VC maintained their control over the population through violence and brutality.

You say >> “Apparently the same party … cancelled the reunification elections scheduled by the ... Geneva Accords.

The Paris peace accords, which North Vietnam agreed to, demanded that a political solution to the conflict be found. The NVA’s political solution was to drive a tank into the presidential palace.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/VietnamEnd.htm

Finally 3,000,000 people escaped Vietnam after the communist won in any rickety boat they could find. How you can suggest, with any semblance of conviction, that the communists were the peoples choice is beyond me

Hi there - SAINTS & PAUL L.

SAINTS, thank you for your moral support and the encouragement to essentially 'tell my story' . I have very little to tell actually. The war left such an indelible memory on my psyche most of it remains deeply within. Even my dear second wife knows very little of the events that occurred over forty years ago now.

Depression is always just under the surface. I attend the Repatriation Hospital weekly for treatment. Interestingly, there is no treatment that works.

These folk that like to make certain assertions and aver misbehaviour by us (the vets) really don't have a clue. They really don't SAINTS ! It's fine to cite incidences ad infinitum however, unless you were there - well, what else can I say................??

Hi there PAUL L.

I really wouldn't waste my time arguing with STEEL. He possesses an intractable point of view on matters associated with the Vietnam War. And like many others who glean their information from the written word, you'd never be able to shift him from his position of intransigence.

SAINTS & PAUL L.

It's when you put your head down at night...that's when you really do regress back to those 40 odd years ago ?

PaulL, I've revealed your technical errors in my posts here. The fact that you do not realise this is proof again, of your bias.

And yes I revealed that information, with the help of wikipedia. You certainly were ignorant of the details, because your accusations against the North for invading implied ignorance of the context (or a deliberate ommission if you were already aware of it).

1) Was Afghanistan a part of the USSR?
2) Irrelevant
3) That's because of the rigged elections and irrelevant.
4) Vietnam's sovereignty was directly violated after the reunification was cancelled by the South. If you had actually read that, you would have known this by now (even after two opportunities, it still hasn't sunk in though? which indicates your bias or inability to read my comments properly).

All your examples there were during war time, not during peacetime, as the executions of communists by the western sympathetic Diem in the South were.

PaulL.>"The Paris peace accords, which North Vietnam agreed to, demanded that a political solution to the conflict be found. The NVA’s political solution was to drive a tank into the presidential palace."

Those were made in 1970s. I'm talking about 1956 or so. The Geneva reunification was cancelled by the Diem south then.

After these violations and egregious crimes against the country by foreign powers, all bets are off as far as i'm concerned. The prior incident by the western supported south, including the crimes against political opposition, basically indicated treaties were worthless and could be broken. Like the American native indians in America, who were made to sign treaties over land that were never held to by colonialists. Should they be expected to honour new treaties constantly broken? No. They merely completed the reunification as 1956 Geneva required.

Steel,

You say >> “I've REVEALED your technical errors in my posts here. The fact that you do not realise this is proof again, of your bias.”

That’s a fallacious argument although I’m sure you weren’t aware of that. Just for starters you haven’t pointed out that anything I said was an error, what you have done is make a counterpoint. That you cannot see this speaks volumes in itself.

You say >> “your accusations against the North for invading implied ignorance of the context”

1) China insists Tibet and Taiwan are part of China. Is it OK for China to invade Tibet?
2) Irrelevant that the communists were complaining about the lack of democracy. You obviously don’t understand irony at all.
3) I’m talking about the Communist regime after 1975. Reread my original. Who can’t read comments properly?
4) Can’t you even tell the difference between an opinion (indeed propaganda) and fact? You think you are revealing FACT, when in actuality you are revealing opinion or point of view. And someone else’s at that. So don’t be pretending that you are the bearer of truth, revealer of fact.

You say >> “All your examples there were during war time, not during peacetime, as the executions of communists by the western sympathetic Diem in the South were.”

Oh MY GOD.

You have really messed up there Steel, my good man. For a number of reasons I think you might like to take that back before I rub your nose it.

You say >> “After these violations and egregious crimes against the country by foreign powers”

Where do you think that North Vietnam got all of its artillery, tanks, machine guns etc? The communist Russians and Chinese were pumping billions of dollars in arms and funding into North Vietnam as early as 1949.

800,000 people moved out of the North when the country was split in 1954. 3 million left the country when the communists took over in 1975. I think it’s fair to say that the North Vietnamese were not the victims you are trying so desperately to make out.

PauL. When you claimed most were imprisoned or punished for My lai, armed with a citation i pointed out how wrong that was, in reality the opposite had happened.

1. I'm vague on this issue, but i believe China's claims don't hold up to history. And that they've broken the 20th century agreement they reached with the Dalai lama about protecting the culture and autonomy of the people (or something like that).
2. I understand irony, but that is the system. Cancelling elections and executing the political opposition doesn't make you better than them, it makes you the same, or worse (because you hold yourself to false precepts while they are open about their goals). And that is what the south did.
3. Now that you've clarified it i can see the indication, but i don't see the relevance to the cancelling of elections etc, which came first.
4. The cancellation of the reunification is a fact, according to the Geneva agreement in 1950s. The South cancelled it and that was a violation of the sovereignty of Vietnam as a single, unified country as it would have existed.

PaulL."You have really messed up there"

Just remember i'm talking about discrete event and claims. You gave examples of wartime actions. If you have others I'm not aware of that happened before the war and the cancellations, then provide them.

PaulL.>"The communist Russians and Chinese were pumping billions of dollars in arms and funding into North Vietnam as early as 1949."

You must know that in 1941 they were seeking and won independence for their country from the French and Japanese, and that the French in 1946 invaded to try and reinsert French rule, with the support of....yes, the USA. (surprise, surprise)
-=-=-=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam#First_Indochina_War
"during the course of the war, the U.S.-backed French and Vietnamese loyalists eventually suffered a major strategic setback at the Siege of Dien Bien Phu"
-=-==-
Here's a parallel example anyway. In 1953, the democratic USA and UK, who overthrew the democratically elected Iranian president (now we see the seeds of terrorism).

o sung wu

Thank you for responding.....I totally understand why you haven't been able to tell your new wife the traumas you went through...I absolutely respect the fact she is with you and offering a life-line of support to you.

Maybe when the time is right you might like to tell her of all that you went through...I do believe she will support you with further understanding and commitment.

If you believe the weekly sessions at Repatriation are not working, there are many other services available to ex Vietnam Vets that might assist you.

One story that I can relate to you and members of this "thread" -

"We were told to dig trenches offshore, we didn't know where the enemy was at the time, we were just told to "dig in".

We were told this was an important point to "hold".....we did as we were told. We dug in. We held our point for 4 days with rations (which ran out) and no other support personnel.

Any "sound" echoed ......... we didn't know if this was the enemy or our guys ....our guns were at the ready at all times.....it was our lives or theirs.

I need any "human" being to consider 4 days in a "hold situation"....the trauma on the human mind, just put yourself in their situation for a time....and walk in their shoes.

O sung wu - you have a story to tell, as many others who served in Vietnam.... you are not alone.

Yes, you are right when you lie and try to sleep - the traumas come back they never go away.

This is the legacy of war (all wars) .....pure and simple.

Ex service personnel from World War 1, 2 and Vietnam Vets still don't tell their loved ones the true horrors they witnessed.

How anyone can "trivialise" their service - in any way - completely abhors me.

And likewise, how anyone can attribute the "trivialisation" to others -in any way- in cases where the soldiers do so through their own actions themselves completely abhors me.

"You must know that in 1941 they were seeking and won independence for their country from the French and Japanese, and that the French in 1946 invaded to try and reinsert French rule, with the support of....yes, the USA. (surprise, surprise)" - Steel

Because Truman didn't want to unset the French over colonisation. Roosevelt had he lived would probably taken a different stance.

China's relations with Tibet [Hsi Hsia] are very complex and go back to at least 1036 and involve the Mongols too. You should also recall when many favours were bestowed on Tibet it was during the Qing dynasty [Manchu]. The Manchu's dominated the Han from 1644-1911. Mao asserted Han dominance. I could explain the serious Tibetan situation in some detail but suspect you would find my post trivial or silly, as you do slavery.

O.

Good evening to you SAINTS...

Again, thank you for your kind sentiments and support. It's nice to know that some folk both realize and accept that we were SENT to SV by our own government. In the military one does what one's told - absolutely!

I have no doubt whatsoever, that just about ALL Aussie troops who served there, performed their duty in an honourable and decent way.

There was no doubt, the war was a disgusting and atrocious affair, both for civilians and military alike.

Personally, I thought it a bastard of a place. Every time you were tasked to 'go outside the wire' for a patrol or to 'man' a FSB, you s..t yourself until you ultimately returned to the relative safety of 'the Dat' such as it was !

And now thankfully, it's over for most. Except for those who still harbour disconcerting thoughts and disturbing images, that dwell deep within the recesses of their hearts and minds . For those...it'll NEVER be truly over.....ever !

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote:

"In the military one does what one's told - absolutely!"

In the war crimes trials in Nuremberg at the end of WW2 it was not considered an excuse for those who committed atrocities to say that they were only following orders. Soldiers are not robots. I was in WW2. I was never asked to do anything that seemed wrong. I don't know that I would have had the courage to refuse to follow orders in that case. I know there are cases where one should not follow orders even though one may suffer greatly for it..

Steel,

Is that the best you can do? Bring up an old subject that's already been dealt with? I acknowledged that I made an error and apologised, immediately. This seems to be something you are entirely incapable of.

You say >>”All your examples there were during war time, not during peacetime, as the executions of communists ... were.”

Just for starters, the execution of prisoners is never OK. To suggest, that because it was during wartime makes it different, is reprehensible and undermines your whole argument. Secondly I wonder when YOU think the Vietnam War started. Four hundred government officials were assassinated in 1957 alone, and the violence gradually increased. While the terror was originally aimed at local government officials, it soon broadened to include other symbols of the status-quo, such as schoolteachers, health workers, and agricultural officials. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War.

So your statement above, that the executions of communists were during peacetime, is flat out WRONG. Communists were executed both before the war and during the war.

In North-Vietnam the Viet-Minh engaged in agrarian reform in which the mass killing of perceived “class enemies” occurred.

1) Irrelevant
2) I don’t agree at all. Executing the opposition is what the Viet Cong were about.
3) You can’t see the relevance to the fact that the North was never interested in representing the people?
4) The cancellation is a fact. Whether it was a violation of sovereignty is eminently disputable.

DavidF,

Soldiers are required to follow all legal orders. An order to kill a prisoner is not a legal order. It seems to me that O’Sung Wu was pointing out that soldiers don’t get to chose whether to go to war. They go where the Gov’t orders them. I don’t believe that veterans of WW2 have any place criticizing those who fought in Vietnam.

O Sung Wu,

I too encourage you to tell your story. For me courage is not being unafraid, it is setting aside fear and doing what must be done. I think Vietnam vets are fully entitled to feel as proud of their service as any other group of veterans.

Paul L wrote:

"Soldiers are required to follow all legal orders. An order to kill a prisoner is not a legal order. It seems to me that O’Sung Wu was pointing out that soldiers don’t get to chose whether to go to war. They go where the Gov’t orders them. I don’t believe that veterans of WW2 have any place criticizing those who fought in Vietnam."

I did not criticise those who fought in Vietnam. I disagreed with o sung wu's statement that seemed to me to say that a soldier must follow all orders without question. That is not true in WW2, Vietnam or any place else. His statement did not make any distinction as to whether the orders were legal or not. I think anybody has a right to criticise anything they think is wrong. It is part of democratic society that nobody is above criticism. I didn't criticise those who fought in Vietnam, but I have a right to do so where I think they are wrong.

DAVID F...

You say you served in WW2. You also stated inter alia, that you were not asked to 'do something' that was wrong. Further, if you were so asked to do something that was wrong, you would not know what to do, as you're very much aware of the most serious consequence of disobeying a lawful command ? Or, similar words to that effect -

DAVID F., I must admit you really worry me ! As a WW2 Veteran, you simply don't talk the talk or walk the walk ?

Further, I have no idea in what corps, unit or ship you served.

However, I can tell you the Army in which I served, we did as we were ordered ! Unless of course, it was an unlawful command ! I can assure you quite categorically there were VERY VERY few UNLAWFULLY COMMANDS issued in my time (2 x tours).

Mate I gotta say, I'd hate to have you as a member in my platoon too, during a 'hot contact' ! Whilst you carefully pondered upon the order that you were given, was in fact lawful!!

If you were to postulate or pontificate this rather peculiar and curious view of yours, at the local RSL and within the earshot of a group of Vietnam Vets. I reckon you'd be soon drinking on your own !

As I said - you really worry me, particular as you're a WW2 Veteran ?

o sung wu

"DAVID F., I must admit you really worry me ! As a WW2 Veteran, you simply don't talk the talk or walk the walk ? .... If you were to postulate or pontificate this rather peculiar and curious view of yours, at the local RSL and within the earshot of a group of Vietnam Vets. I reckon you'd be soon drinking on your own !"

David's comments might worry you but they impress me. I know you will dismiss my view as of no consequence, but as one of the citizens whose taxes help pay for this country's not inconsiderable military expenditure I would find it far more reassuring to know our defence forces comprised thinking and compassionate people like David as opposed to those who in your words "talk the talk and walk the walk". These comments of yours are very telling and only serve to further reinforce my reservations about the way war is being celebrated in this country today.

I respect your Vietnam service, particularly if you were conscripted and had no choice in it, and I am very sorry to hear of your ongoing suffering as a result of that service. But I find it quite outrageous that you could query the legitimacy of David's service the way you have and misconstrue his refreshingly honest and perfectly fair and reasonable comments on the basis that they don't quite fit the RSL boy's club prescription of how returned service people should think and behave.

Time to start your own thread on your particular points of view. Let the diggers rest in peace on this thread.

".......about the way war is being celebrated in this country today."

Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 8 May 2008 12:24:45 AM

How in the hell can we be on the same side when you come out with this??

Gawd! It bloody irritates me Bronwyn! War is NOT;-categorically NOT 'celebrated'!!

TJ: you said much the same on 27 April. They didn't listen then, and they are not listening now.

Too many points yet to score.

BRONWYN...

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I've read you post carefully. Consequently, I've taken aboard your comments, opinions and criticism, in the hope that the next war that this country chooses to prosecute (and if I'm sent), I'll endeavour to 'celebrate' that war as a compassionate, caring and thinking soldier.

Further, I sincerely regret not living up to David F's moral standards either. I guess that is the difference between veterans of WW2 and Vietnam ?

And sadly, I was a regular ! As such, I guess there is probably more culpability assigned to me as a volunteer, then if I were simply a conscript ?

Bronwyn, perhaps you've opened up a completely new area for establishing the 'Rules of Engagement' ? Inculcating a much more avant-garde approach and mindset for the soldier of the 21st Century !

Hopefully producing an infinitely more omniscient, empathic and sensitivity individual who by necessity will quietly muse upon the legitimacy or otherwise, an order that he may receive during the course of battle.

To: SAINTS and PAUL L...

Both of you have kindly encouraged me to relate my 'story' as it were, of my two tours in SV.

Perhaps it would be better if you were to put you questions to either BRONWYN or DAVID F. It would appear that they have a greater knowledge of those times and events then I ?

Thanks SAINTS. You say:

"Since those years I still remain in contact with so many of these boys (now men) who try to live day by day.....the trauma of what they witnessed and experienced won't go away and hasn't for many of them.
Anzac Day should never be replaced, as it is a day of remembrance and a show of respect for all our serving personnel."

Let us agree on this then - war is hell. And the Government (and perhaps many sections of society) throw those who return into the dustbin of history (or at least did so for Vietnam Vets.)

Where I disagree with you is on the role of ANZAC day. Like the author I believe it does actually create myths about war, and prepares the next generation for the next set of wars. It is powerful tool for politicians to lay the groundwork for accepting our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

Of course it is other things as well, as you and Ginx and others have pointed out. In my view that doesn't detract from its main purpose of inculcating in the next generation the honour and valour of "just" wars , ie just from an Australian elite's point of view. I just happen to believe no war is just and even those we are involved in which have the guise of justice (and not just the propaganda of justice) are actually on closer examination really battles between differing versions of imperialism.

But I think given the chasm in Weltanschauung shown on this and other Anzac Day posts that perhaps we all just agree war is horror and work for a world without war.

o sung wu

I watched Parliament Question time yesterday and was heartened to hear both Leaders remember our Vietnam Vets on a special day of rememberance in the Vietnam Conflict....the combat they were speaking of went on for 4.1/2 weeks the longest combat within one area during the entire Vietnam War.

We lost 26 Aussie men with 111 seriously wounded.

Both Leaders acknowledged the Vietnam Vets courage and dedication during this war. They also acknowledged the fact that many returning service personnel returned home with many illnesses which continue to plague their lives to this very day.

Both Leaders also apologized for the treatment Vietnam Vets received upon returning home by the Government of the Day, including the fact it took 20 years for the Government to acknowledge our Vietnam Vets. Hear, hear.

Dr Nelson finished his speech with - "Lest we Forget".

I congratulate both Leaders for their remembrance speech yesterday to our Vietnam Vets.

o sung wu - Maybe both Leaders have been reading this thread. The thread has been most interesting reading for many reasons. If you are able to obtain a transacript of yesterday's apology by both our Leaders to the Vietnam Vets please do so. They said much more in recognition of service to all you guys. Space here will not permit me to write the entire speech. I did take it down as I wanted to save it for my friends who - like you - also served and came home so traumatized.

I wish to ad my words of respect to all fallen service personnel - "Lest we Forget".

Passy

You say -

"Let us agree on this then - war is hell. And the Government (and perhaps many sections of society) throw those who return into the dustbin of history (or at least did so for Vietnam Vets.)"

I agree with your above comment, - war is hell any war is hell.
I also agree that the Government of the Day did certainly toss our Vietnam Vets into the proverbial dustbin of history.

Refer to my above post - maybe both Leaders "lifted the proverbial lid of that dustbin" yesterday with their remembrance speeches in recognition of service by our Vietnam Vets.

I still disagree with you as to the role of Anzac Day. I don't agree that it creates myths about war.....there are no myths about war, just hard-cold facts.

Hard-cold facts with our serving personnel who lost their lives fighting for our flag, our country, our beliefs, our freedom, whether it be in World War 1, 2, Korean War, Vietnam War or our current conflict with Iraq and Afghanstan.

The role of Anzac Day for me (and I believe for many others) is a day of "remembrance and respect" for lives lost by all serving personnel in all wars.

I don't believe in respecting Anzac Day it is "glorifying" any war and preparing the next generation for the next set of wars as you say.

Anzac Day - "Lest we Forget".

Passy,

You say >> “I believe it [ANZAC DAY] does actually create myths about war, and prepares the next generation for the next set of wars. It is powerful tool for politicians to lay the groundwork for accepting our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

Absolute, unadulterated rubbish. The French for example, as a society, are far prouder of their military exploits, (what there are of them) yet this didn’t drive them to war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are many other nations which proudly honour not just their war dead, but also their military prowess, yet aren’t involved in Iraq or Afghanistan. And then there is Japan, where even mention of the military is almost Taboo, sending soldiers to Afghanistan.

Get your grubby hands off ANZAC day. You cannot work towards a world without war by forgetting about the cost of war. Anyway, as Ginx says, (one of the only sensible things she’s ever said), ANZAC day is Veterans day, they get to decide what it stands for, not you or me. Anyone caught out using ANZAC day for their own political benefit will face a strong backlash from the community.

You say there is no just war, but what about “the Revolution”, man! What about the oppression of the working classes, dude. Can’t they “throw off their shackles” and take up arms against “the man”? Like, far out man.

I take great comfort imagining you babbling endlessly into your tea about the revolution and the imperialist stain, like an autistic child.

Hi there SAINTS...

Again, thank you for your magnificent support for the Veterans' of SV.

You sound like an individual who possesses considerable insight into the atrocious effects war has on soldiers who have fought therein, per se.

Myself, I'm quite lucky really. I have generally escaped relatively unscathed. A few emotional and relationship problems (which went a long way in assisting the destruction of my first marriage), although reasonably protracted, I've witnessed much much worse, I have to say.

Anyway SAINTS, and to you too PAUL L., many thanks again to you both, for your steadfast and indefatigable support of those hapless Veterans of the Vietnam War.

I reckon they'd sure appreciate it !

PS. I really must confess SAINTS, I sometimes wonder what the true motives are of the PM Kevin RUDD and Dr. Brenden NELSON, when they both extol and eulogize the 'eminence' of Vietnam Vets ?

Back in those 'illustrious' times, most members of the Labor Party wouldn't give us the 'time of day', let alone heap praise upon us ?
How times have changed ! Or have they ?

I remember vividly the wharfies union wouldn't load our mail on the supply ship 'SS Japarit' (later, the HMAS Japarit, after it was purchased by the Govt.) so we didn't get our 'heavy' mail (little packets and parcels containing gifts and cakes etc from our families) for several months. And we all know who is supposed to control the unions in those days, don't we ?!