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.