Thank goodness we are finally having these debates again, as they have been missing in action for the last few years!

I agree with the article overall. However, I don't think it goes far enough. While examining the justifiability of Australia’s participation in wars is preferable to uncritical acceptance, I would rather we went deeper into why war has come to have such a hold over Australian culture.

Since becoming involved in the peace movement, I have been made increasingly aware of the extent to which Australia’s long and often colourful history of proactive peace activity (especially in WWI) has been repeatedly suppressed, sometimes violently so.

Yet our war culture has been given every encouragement – in the form of government spending, media space, education curricula and extra-curricular school programs, and publishing, film and television projects, to name a few.

For reasons that continue to escape me, Australian culture considers war sacred and those who fight in wars are treated with utmost reverence. Yet, peace activism is seen as a reprehensible, treasonable, morally dangerous activity, and peace activists are routinely pushed to the sidelines of any debates about our cultural identity.

Until we come to terms with this howling double standard, Australia will just keep on doing what it does best, i.e. Fight the war now, ask the moral questions later.

Good essay.

I find this entire topic quite baffling. We seem to be indulging in a collective nostalgia for the "good old days" when everybody had a collective and very meaningful project that they could identify with, other than their own narrow self interest. Apparently there is also a record number of new books on our Oz wars too--both already published and in the pipeline.

It could even be said that we are collectively invoking, or praying for, a return to these "good old days" of collective meaning and purpose.

I would even call it a cult of death. Not dissimilar to the catholic practice of revering the bones of saints---even to the extent of taking the bones (and even a cross) on a world-wide tour so that the "faithful" (or rather completely gullible) can see them (the bones).
Be careful what you prayer for.

Actually, I think that ANZAC Day is probably the least appropriate day to discuss all these things. They should be discussed throughout the year, by all sorts of commentators in various fora. But when the days of 'commemoration' come around (ANZAC day, Armistice day etc.), the arguments and discussions should cease and we should come together to remember the fallen. The soldiers and civilians that died in the belief that they died for a better future for everyone. It does not matter whether this belief was justified or not.

Also, I think that the author (and other authors on the same topic) should be very careful about falling victim to the Historians Fallacy.

The problem with asking this question "Why" did we fight....?

is that the answer is never simple.

"They attacked us"... would be so easy and simple.

In reality, we were involved in the Boer war because we were British Subjects in an Empire which decided it would fight certain people.
Actually.. more correct historically, I think the Boers decided to fight the British...over various perceived grievances.

WW1 becomes more complex. What many on the left seem to deliberately ignore in their frantic and hysterical attempts to undermine any sense of "Nationhood" which of course is a barrier to "International Socialist Utopia", is the fact that the 'peace' such as it was, existed as:

1/ The outcome of previous wars.
2/ The balance of power, based on alliances.

No war ever produces happiness on all sides, and I absolutely believe that the 'peace' of one war simply sows the seeds of the next. So, alliances and power balance is needed.

Once such an alliance is challenged or threatened, the very nature of alliances neccessitate quick and decisive action to remedy the breakdown and restore 'the peace'.

WWII again, can be seen in terms of 'the seeds' being sown after WWI and so on.

Korea and the cold war.. were the 'power balance' at work again.

Sometimes, it could be quite legitimate to 'invade' a country like Germany BEFORE the predictable happens. Which looks 'bad' to those who enjoy heaping scorn on those they see as 'glorifing war' but the reality is, leaders must make strategic decisions in the interests of the greater peace, and minimal loss of life. This CAN mean 'invasions' at times.

As Bugsy says.. it's a time for remembering the fallen, not whether they were 'right' or 'wrong'. they followed orders, plain and simple.
If we need to find guilt and wrongdoing, it will be found MUCH higher up the military/political pecking order than those who have died in combat.

Seems to me, there is a lot of anti-ANZAC rhetoric about on OLO at the moment.Is the socialist book club having a trash the ANZAC’s special or something?

SJF,

You can’t understand why those who give their lives in service to their country are revered?

These people responded to a call from their country to serve. They put aside their personal preferences and subscribed to a higher calling. These people were the ones who asked “why should someone else shoulder the burden, why not me”. Misguided or not these people believed in the idea that real democracy, real society comes with responsibilities as well as rights. To many on the left today that is an entirely foreign concept.

In WW1 there was perhaps some naivete on the part of those who signed up. Yet young men signed up in similar numbers for WW2 with the full knowledge of what war could do. These people died in staggering numbers yet there were few desertions.

Most Australians considered themselves British subjects and would have scoffed at any suggestion that Britain’s business was somehow not our business. Volunteers form across the empire responded to the call. Canadians, South Africans, Aussies and Indians all signed on in support of what was considered the ‘mother country’.

Germany invaded France and Belgium. Just like they did the second time around. Funnily enough the French were not real happy with that outcome. As allies of France with binding mutual aid treaties, it was Britain’s duty to come to the aid of France and Belgium.

Peace activism never had much support from the general community, because the general community understands that the soldiers who fight Australias wars are us. They are not some obscure group, they are our fathers, brothers, sons and now, mothers daughters and sisters. We cannot disown them anymore than we can disown ourselves.

The other point is that the vast majority of people actually understand that the fight was justified, indeed in WW1 and WW2 it was imperative. So the hippy dippy bunch who spout socialist nonsense never got much of a following.

For goodness sake Paul L. We had young men and boys wanting an adventure in WW1 and to go home to the mother land with a free ticket. They were not glorious heroes going to give their lives for anyone, they wanted to have a lark then go home and celebrate christmas in England. Will you get over the boys own adventure stories please?

More of the soldiers died of the pox than died of anything else, something that has been forgotten in the last few years of jingoistic nonsense.

War is never even remotely sensible and is always the total failure of imagination and commonsense and it is time we cancelled anzac day until we grow up enough to stop sending young men to pointless war zones.

There seems to be some kind of undercurrent here, that Australia was somehow unique in its selfless contribution - because that is what it was - to the two major wars this century.

>>Did Australia commit itself to war in Europe in 1914 and 1939 simply because Britain declared war on Germany or did Australia have security concerns of its own? Or more bluntly, has Australia largely fought in other people’s wars and unnecessarily so?<<

Canada wasn't threatened directly either. Nor were India, New Zealand, South Africa or the United States.

But it is perfectly reasonable for involved parties to call for support from people with whom they share ideals and moralities. And it is perfectly reasonable for those countries, when called upon, to willingly commit themselves to a cause in which they believe, even though they are not in the firing line, and the commitment involves risk and pain.

Countries such as Ireland and Switzerland remained "neutral" in WWII because they didn't share the same moral values, preferring instead to take advantage of the sacrifice of others. They undoubtedly ended the war richer and unscathed, as would Australia had we avoided the conflict.

The article asks a couple of "why" questions, which become increasingly difficult to answer as the years pass. One that I would ask, though, is how would we justify our non-involvement to ourselves and our friends, both then and now?

How would we feel about ourselves if we had refused to respond to the call, and instead taken advantage of the impoverishment of other countries, as did Switzerland and Ireland?

I arrived in Australia at the age of 10. I well remember my first Anzac Day at our local State School. It was a beautiful ceremony. Some of the older teachers wept openly.

Coming from a heavily bombed city, I naturally saw the whole thing as an affirmation of peace - as a condemnation of war. Perception is everything, I suppose. It took a few more episodes to teach me that Anzac Day is not exactly an anti-war demonstration.

Having "missed out" on Vietnam, I finally entered an RSL club for the first time in my early 40's, when work took me to NSW. I saw straight away that this was a place where ex-servicemen could meet kindred spirits. No need for explanation, the recognition of a shared past - a shared fate - a shared destiny, was written all over the old bloke's faces. Honestly, I never tired of, "We will remember them....."

....but it all came at such a terrible cost.

In order to bask in the comfort and understanding of their fellow travellers, the survivors were forced to conform to to the old meme that the wars were an inevitable facet of human nature (that they had sacrificed themselves to confront).

While this is palpably true, it struck me as odd therefore that RSLs are not hot beds of anarchy - howlingly anti-war, anti-empire, anti-war-profiteer, anti-mendacity, anti-conservatism.

I think it is a great shame that the RSL and it's old members are not in the forefront of flag-burnings, anti-weapons, anti-war demonstrations and anti-war songmanship.

- maybe Anzac Day has become just another way of propping up the same old, same old - the ultimate emotional blackmail.

- maybe we should give the Anzacs the reward for which they sacrificed - and begin dismantling a few sacred cows.

We used to forget that thousands of Australian children killed, wounded or suffered in 1st world word, in the battlefields. According to international Convention on the Rights of the Child,“ a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years" We forgot "that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,… that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding" and we send our children to the war! We ignored that ""the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection" and we encourage our children to go to war, we pushed them to the graveyards!
At least now, we must recognize our terrible mistakes and stop promoting the children soldiers. The persons who think that the youth was more mature then than now make a huge mistake. Modern youths are very mature and the parents and Authorities was totally irresponsible giving permissions to children for the war.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Marilyn

Another fact-free rant from Marilyn. For goodness sake Marilyn, at least attempt to provide some evidence for your blanket assertions.

As I pointed out in my last post, some of the young blokes who signed up for WW1 may have been adventure seekers. However, do you honestly believe that the blokes with families felt that way? Can you really pretend that all or even most of the 416,000 men out of a total population of 5 million were adventurists?

If you do, then please explain why, with full knowledge of the cost of war, 1,000,000 blokes voluntarily signed up for WW2 just on 20 years later? No one in 1939 was unaware of the massive cost to our country of the Great War.

Lets take another of your so-called facts “ More soldiers died of the pox, than of anything else”
Battle related deaths for Australians in WW1 were 53,000 versus 7,000 non battle deaths.
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/statistics/world_wars.asp
So much for your slander about STD

You say “They were not glorious heroes going to give their lives for anyone”.
That is irrelevant because giving their lives for others is exactly what many of them did. They were instrumental in winning the war and freeing the French and Belgians and others from the oppression of the dictatorships and the absolute monarchies.

The reason the so-called “peace movement” has so much trouble getting through to the mainstream is that people like Marilyn and SJF want to slag off the soldiers and their achievements. That’s why you’ll never be more than a fringe group of disaffected whingers.

Chris Shaw,

The veterans aren’t forced to conform to the old meme that the wars were an inevitable facet of human nature. Most veterans of WW1 and WW2 and Korea and many Vietnam Vets fully believe that the wars they fought were justified. Their belief in this is shared by the wider community. The reason you won’t find vets flag burning is because they value the flag as a powerful positive symbol.

Go spin your socialist nonsense elsewhere.

Paul, take three minutes of your precious time and watch this to the end:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19832.htm

- then watch it again, to be sure.....

MARILYN

You realllly shot yourself in the foot this time.

"More soldiers died of the POX than....."

Paul L showed the silliness of that wild claim.

Then you said:

"War is never even remotely sensible and is always the total failure of imagination and commonsense"

and with this.. I AGREE... who has ever said war is 'sensible'?

Unnnnnfortunately for us, while WE might agree to this, there are those 'out there' for whom War is enjoyable, fun, and a pathway to power over others. The 'others' might include.....YOU!

Now.. if you truly feel you could have 'talked sense' into Adolph, then..by all means apply to join our diplomatic corps.. and volunteer to negotiate with Bin Ladin on behalf of the Yanks.

The world is not simple black and white when it comes to international conflicts, and your infantile claim denies the reality and presense of megalomaniacs who must....be fought.. with violence for the sake of our freedom.

BUT.. you have the last word on this, explain how 'negotiation' would have prevented WWII? Good grief.. Chamberlain did try... r u a fan of his?
Lets see.. how would you have explained the 'non sensical' nature of war to the Japanese militarists when they raped Nanking? or..denuded Korea of all trees? or 'black flagged' a section of Singapore and slaughtered everyone within it?

come.. tell us all how you would fix all that.. and please don't 'blame it on the West'.

http://multi-media.modernwriters.org/modules/smartmedia/clip.php?categoryid=3&folderid=4&clipid=49

Then take another 3 or so minutes to watch this one Paul, then get back to us all about glorious war and glorious hero soldiers who sign up to slaughter and maim.

Marilyn, I'm not following this argument but in another thread I have had a discussion with PaulL. I noticed this parallel display and felt I had to comment as I found this statement priceless (PaulL is one of the most tendentious, biased posters on OLO). Example from a single post of his:

PaulL.>"Another fact-free rant from Marilyn. For goodness sake Marilyn, at least attempt to provide some evidence for your blanket assertions."

Then,

PaulL.>"The reason the so-called “peace movement” has so much trouble getting through to the mainstream is that people like Marilyn and SJF want to slag off the soldiers and their achievements. That’s why you’ll never be more than a fringe group of disaffected whingers."

-=-=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Early_opposition

"The opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of global protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just prior the Iraq invasion beginning on March 20, 2003.

"Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)." [1]

-=-=

You see the "peace movement" was not only mainstream, it was almost universally accepted by people around the world.

At the same time as Paul L talks about "slagging off" soldiers he does exactly that to those who have a different viewpoint, which he invariably labels as "leftist". (Eg. "That’s why you’ll never be more than a fringe group of disaffected whingers."-paul l. in his description of the "peace movement").

OH MY GOD,

After suggesting that I and many others have been mythologizing our soldiers, I get,not one but two, links TO POEMS. Talk about mythologizing.

You people really are fruitloops. That’s your evidence? Poetry? WTF is that evidence of except for the “tortured soul” of the ARTISTE? You send me “ART” as evidence.

I really have to laugh. This is the weakest attempt at rebuttal I have yet encountered since Ginx started having fun with peoples online TAG names.

Marilyn

>> “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Often ascribed to Edmund Burke

I don’t glorify war. I have never in my posts suggested that war is glorious or good.

What I said is that those who have fought and died for their country deserve respect. Soldiers don’t decide what wars they go and fight. They trust that the gov’t makes the right call on that. They don’t have the luxury of extended soul searching. They don’t have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. There job is to do what they are told by gov’t. The people WE elect. So don’t blame soldiers for wars, blame gov’ts and more specifically the people that voted for them.

I see you couldn’t answer a single question I asked you. The reason for this is that you post without thinking, regularly without any semblance of the truth. This may be on line OPINION but we aren’t going to let you get away with stating something as fact without having some evidence.

So Marilyn if you can’t see the difference between, revering soldiers who sacrificed their lives for their country, and loving war, then you aren’t worth any more of my time.

Chris,

Whatever you may think most decisions during wartime are between bad and worse. Someone has to make those decisions because if we left it up to opinion polls nothing would ever get done.

>> “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle”. Edmund Burke

BTW the poetry was Sentimental SH!T.

Pericles,

‘How would we feel about ourselves if we had refused to respond to the call, and instead taken advantage of the impoverishment of other countries, as did Switzerland and Ireland?’

Your disdain for Ireland’s neutrality in WWII is a bit rich. Why on earth would they want to help fight Britain’s wars when they had been fighting the British military occupation of their own country for 600 years?

And lest we forget all those young Englishmen who responded to the call to form part of an army of occupation whose orders were to invade, dispossess, exploit, harass, impoverish, disenfranchise, evict, starve and massacre the Irish people in their own country.

And as for how I'd feel if Australia had refused to 'respond to the call'?

In a world where leaders sheepishly follow tyrants and superpowers into one counterproductive war after another, I'd feel intensely proud to be living in a country that displayed the moral courage to say No.

How did they suddenly become "Britain’s wars", SJF?

>>Why on earth would [Ireland] want to help fight Britain’s wars when they had been fighting the British military occupation of their own country for 600 years?<<

England and France had been at war even longer (1066 ring a bell? Agincourt? Crécy?) yet it was Britain who came to the aid of the French in 1939.

My point was that moral principles are involved in selflessly supporting what was clearly right - as Australia did - as opposed to gleefully taking advantage of others' misfortunes.

>>In a world where leaders sheepishly follow tyrants and superpowers into one counterproductive war after another, I'd feel intensely proud to be living in a country that displayed the moral courage to say No.<<

If that is how you define courage, it isn't surprising you support the Irish stance on opposing Hitler.

It must have taken immense courage to avoid that particular battle, given the massive sacrifices made by so many other countries.

The more others suffer, the more courage you display by avoiding the fight.

Neat. You must be so proud.

Right Paul, you tell the families of the slaughtered people it was sentimental s..t. Which is precisely what I call ANZAC day because it is about people we didn't know, who died stupidly, over 90 years ago in a foreign country for no reason.

Whereas the innocent victims of Fallujah were murdered by the US and they should be remembered with some sentiment as they didn't invade, bomb or hurt anyone.

Pericles

‘My point was that moral principles are involved in selflessly supporting what was clearly right …’

There are only two moral principles in war:

1. The other side always starts them.
2. The side that wins is the side that’s right.

With the notable exception of liberation struggles against occupation or persecution (struggles that are rarely fought by legal armies), wars are about power, not morality.

Marilyn ,

One young Australian went to fight in WW1, on the battlefields of France where he didn’t die, but the gas scarred his lungs, and his ability to undertake hard physical work thereafter was limited. Involved in the capture of the Mephisto in France, this young, slim, tall, gentle man, spent his time running messages from the back to the frontline.

He came back from war and over ten years later married a younger woman, who went on to have 8 children. My mother is the oldest of those and before the age of 12, was pulled out of school to care for her younger siblings, while my grandmother worked the farm.

ANZAC day might have no special meaning for you, but the impact of WWI is felt generations after. I never met my grandfather, he died the year I was born (I am at the top end of a line of 36 grandchildren who never “knew” him). But it was “people we know” who went to the European battlefields in WW1 and suffered the aftermath. There are now over 60 Australian sons and daughters, grandchildren and great-children, to pause and reflect on just this one man who did his duty. ANZAC day is the perfect day to share his story with my children, and to contemplate the freedoms we enjoy as a result. This is not jingoistic pride, some puffed-up version of nationhood or emotional garbage. This is a deep sorrow that cuts across the generations.

Marilyn - I'd like to share a story : when my GF stepped off the boat in Durban, on his way to France, the British jeered the Australian soldiers.

Another: when it came to expatriating the Mephisto that the Australians had captured, the British government created problems.

You were born in Australia, you grew up in Australia, but your parents were British-background, weren't they?

Am I to believe that he went and fought (with the legacy of permanent lung damage and shrapnel wounds to the face and nose), ate horse and dog flesh, buried friends at sea, and was jeered at by the best of the British, just so that you could write such diatribe?

Affinity with ANZAC day IS part of our heritage (not yours, that much is clear), and I doubt that most Australians need to dig back to the trenches of WW1 to find a family member directly affected by war.

Our forefathers were not blind fools. They saw firsthand how the British viewed their participation. It might of twigged just as they were being ordered into the frontline of the bloodiest battles by the British generals.

My grandfather had plenty of time to think about why he was going into war alongside allies who showed little or no respect. And still he went.

Now, you could stand at the dock in Durban and continue jeering, or you could open your arms and embrace the unique character that comes with the country of your birth. Then you might have a hope of understanding how to differentiate an opportunist from a genuine asylum-seeker.

You don't get away that easily, SJF.

>>There are only two moral principles in war:

1. The other side always starts them.
2. The side that wins is the side that’s right.<<

Neither of these is a moral principle, as you well know.

They are the sort of cynical observations that are made by a bystander who is looking for excuses not to get involved.

The moral right in WWII was undoubtedly with the Allies. Having worked in Germany, I know that even the Germans accept and understand that.

WWI is harder to unravel, I accept, but the moral involved there was less about who was "right", but deciding who were your mates, and whether you would help them if they asked.

>>With the notable exception of liberation struggles against occupation or persecution (struggles that are rarely fought by legal armies), wars are about power, not morality.<<

The problem with this is whether your liberation struggle is simply a cover story you tell yourself to justify murdering people whose politics (or religion) you disagree with. At which point your freedom fighter actually turns out to be a terrorist.

And be honest, most liberation struggles are also about power, not morality.

KTO,

I look forward to having a chat with you, but need the deep breath/count to 10/sleep before I do.

I would hate my post to be deleted.

Good grief, Katie, so what? My own grandfather was 3 years in Palestine in WW11 and three years in the jungle and filth of New Guinea and carried shrapnel for the last 25 years of his life to remind him of how vile it was. He never marched, he got his Vietnam aged son deferred from active duty and even had him enter into a marriage to stop him going to fight another useless war in Vietnam.

Hero right? Saved our way of life right? Wrong dear.

He was a wife beater, a child molestor and a right old bastard so as the only member of my family who went to the stupid war why should I honour him ever?

Just being a soldier does not make people good, it shows an absolute failure of imagination of thugs like him.

Pericles

‘You don't get away that easily, SJF.’

Interesting word choice … The armchair warmongers’ battle cry: ‘We will never surrender! Hrrrrmph! Pass the port.’

‘The moral right in WWII was undoubtedly with the Allies. Having worked in Germany, I know that even the Germans accept and understand that.’

Because they were defeated. Had Germany won, they would have written the WWII narrative to portray themselves as morally right. Hitler would have blended into history as just another ruthless iron man – the victors’ euphemism for mass murderers. (And we’ve got plenty of those in our own cupboard.)

And while we’re on the subject, I’ve always thought it odd that about 50 million people had to die in order to save Europe from totalitarian fascism, only to have half of it handed over to totalitarian Communism as part of a handshake deal with Stalin. Moral, please??

‘The problem with this is whether your liberation struggle is simply a cover story you tell yourself to justify murdering people whose politics (or religion) you disagree with. At which point your freedom fighter actually turns out to be a terrorist.’

It depends on whether the freedom fighters’ side wins or loses the war of liberation. If it loses they are deemed terrorists. If it wins they are deemed statesmen

Marilyn

After reading your last post (no pun intended), I’m reminded of one scenario from my family …

A cousin of mine who did 6 months service in Vietnam in 1968 received a no-interest war service home loan on his return and completed a degree paid for entirely by the army even though he was by then a civilian. He is now worth over $4 million, but still collects a non-means-tested war service pension. When I once asked him how he justifies still receiving a pension when he is so rich, he replied (without even a pause): ‘I served my country. I deserve it.’

While we as a society love to beat up on dole bludgers, the disabled and single mums, the true extent of wasteful military welfare has been rendered far too sacred to ever become an issue for public debate.

And don’t even get me started on how the military is given billions of dollars for state-of-the-art helicopters and such, when CareFlight has to beg for donations to stay in the air.

"....believe that the wars they fought were justified. Their belief in this is shared by the wider community."

Quite so, but we are still missing the point entirely.

The point is, ask them if they think that war is a good thing. Give them the power to influence the times in which they live, which will they choose? Do you really think that communities want war? Are those old soldiers grateful for the bounty that the wars bestowed upon them and their families?

The last time I checked my watch, it said I was living in the 21st Century, yet we are still lured by this mucky thinking - caused by the lobotomising corruption of misdirected patriotism and smug superiority.

Take Iraq for example:

1. A country made helpless by 10 years of crippling sanctions. 50% of it's population was 16 years old or less (CIA Factbook, 2002). We made war on children.

2. 1.2 million Iraqis now lie dead - millions more displaced. It is admitted that 925 have been bombed and shelled to bits in the Sadr City suburbs in the last month alone. This is genocide.

3. Had the British joined with the Nazis to crush Poland, they could not have been more perfidious than Australia in 2002/3, given the vulnerability of Iraq. Oh, don't spin me any vomit about noble causes!

4. Yet we re-elected the lying, treacherous Howard cabal in 2004. Nuremberg was quietly buried in the outback of a wide, now smelly, brown land.

5. If this is truly a democracy then I am culpable.

- an' I'm mad as hell about it!

SJF,

It seems there are quite a few people out there who wouldn’t mind if we didn’t give our soldiers fighting overseas the best equipment we can afford.

Tell me should they hand back their body armour as well?

Chris,

1) What a lot of absolute rubbish. We didn’t make war on the people of Iraq. We didn’t go there and indiscriminately kill every Iraqi we could find. We didn’t make war on the population so your next point that we made war on children is also stupid.

2) 1.2 million Iraqis are dead because of the Sunni-Shia hatred that has existed for a very long time, and which Saddam capitalized upon. You continue to ignore that the VAST majority of these deaths are caused by violence between the different sects. That won’t go away if we leave. If anything it will get worse.

The Iraqi gov’t itself, (the one elected mostly by Shia), is cracking down on Muqtadr El Sadr and his militia after they broke the ceasefire that had until recently kept the peace in the Shia areas. Do you actually have any figures as to how many are militants. You know the ones who have massacred Iraqi army and police units and bombed coalition personnel?

3) This is the most ridiculous thing you have said yet. Britain told Poland that they would go to their aid if they were attacked. Britain did so. Iraq was under UN sanctions for the 12 years since they invaded Kuwait. Regular battles were fought in the areas of the no fly zones. Iraq had no illusions about coalition intentions. Whether the war was wrong or right you cannot pretend that it was somehow unexpected

4) Everything is a genocide for you soft left morons except actual genocide. You know like the genocide of his own people that Saddam carried out. Like the Sunni attempts to wipe out Shia, and Shia attempts to do the same.

If a Sunni blows up a Shia mosque, that’s not a coalition war crime no matter how much spin you put on it.

This is getting a little close to becoming a civilized exchange, SJF. Worrying.

>>It depends on whether the freedom fighters’ side wins or loses the war of liberation. If it loses they are deemed terrorists. If it wins they are deemed statesmen<<

Approximately true, I guess. But they can sometimes be both. Or neither.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-115407500.html

>>Because they were defeated. Had Germany won, they would have written the WWII narrative to portray themselves as morally right. Hitler would have blended into history as just another ruthless iron man – the victors’ euphemism for mass murderers.<<

That's one theory. However, my own view is that at some point one of the attempts on Hitler's life by the Prussians would have succeeded. They were also a militaristic bunch, but they were a more honourable - read, moral - bunch than Hitler's mob. The way would then have been open for a purge of the Nazi party - the citizens, for sure, were already pretty disillusioned with them by 1945.

Who knows.

>>I’ve always thought it odd that about 50 million people had to die in order to save Europe from totalitarian fascism, only to have half of it handed over to totalitarian Communism as part of a handshake deal with Stalin. Moral, please??<<

To the victor, the spoils.

Marilyn, I'm assuming that you are the direct beneficiary of the post war free or assisted passage immigration scheme. Your parents came here to fill employment opportunities created by the Australian men and women who died in WW2, amongst other things. Is the irony lost on you?

You may be first generation Australian, but you are more a child of your own generation, come of age in the Vietnam War, rider of the “peace” train, swept up in a groundswell protest that eventually brought our troops back home from an unpopular war. I’m not suggesting that you grow-up, but that the global landscape has changed irrevocably, and your ‘60s view, shaped by the unique circumstances of a particular war, and a particular war draft, is outdated. It is time to reframe your politics.

In your desire to protect future generations from going to war - your Australian children, your Australian grand-children – trampling over those who have served their country voluntarily or by draft is unnecessary if you have a valid point to make. We all have a vested interest in the future of this country. But I don’t need to argue this, right? There are many passionate, committed Australians serving their country in the armed forces right now. In a warzone or preparing to go. Now. They need your prayers, not your condescension.

Your personal family story is sad, all the more so because of your personal attack on your grandfather. However, it is not part of the ANZAC narrative. You have dragged him into this to tout your own anti-male, anti-war bias. Patronizing.

Likewise, SJF, your story on your cousin sounds like a case of sour grapes. If you have a problem with government services, then it might be prudent to take it up with the appropriate government department, or your local member, not harangue war vets over their entitlements.

Ginx: chill

KatieO, I must admit I had not seen it that way before.

>>Your parents came here to fill employment opportunities created by the Australian men and women who died in WW2, amongst other things. Is the irony lost on you?<<

Of course, it is all suddenly crystal clear.

Australia had lost so many men and women in the war - unlike Europe, I guess - that it was necessary to import them from a region that had a surplus.

Are you sure about that?

Think of it. A country that was physically untouched by war, in that no battles had taken place in the streets and in the fields and no cities had been bombed flat and burnt. On the other side of the world, whole countries had been devastated, their people displaced, even food basics were rationed.

In a surge of selfless gratitude, we bribe these people to cross the world to help us out, relying on their feelings of helplessness and hopelessness about the situation in Europe to convince them to come.

Let's face it, there weren't many Swiss or Irish in that particular transmigration.

KatieO says to Marilyn:

"Your personal family story is sad, all the more so because of your personal attack on your grandfather. However, it is not part of the ANZAC narrative. You have dragged him into this to tout your own anti-male, anti-war bias. Patronizing."

Actually the consequences of war are part of the Anzac narrative, or should be. Those who support war try to sweep under the carpet the devastating effects of war on the populations involved. 1 million dead in Iraq, for example. 500,000 Iraqis killed before that by our sanctions.

But the other thing the apologists for war ignore is the effect on the combatants. Alcoholism and other drug abuse is common among war veterans as they self-medicate to forget the horror. Typically the noble Government that sent them to do its killing then ignores them.

There is an alternative to this honouring of war. The first world war produced a political radicalisation that saw the Tsar swept away, a revolution in Germany that ended the war, and revolutions across Europe and beyond that swept away the old order and in some circumstances saw Communist Governments with mass support come to power for short periods.

That radicalisation occurred among Anzacs too, something the Anzac story conveniently forgets.

Even the second world war produced a radicalisation of sorts. The Japanese communist party had mass support. The Greek communist party probably had majority support. But Stalin stuck to the Yalta deal where the major imperialisms - the US, Britain and USSR - had divided the world up to share the spoils.

And Churchill, the great Tory warmonger, lost the election. People wanted a better world, one without the horrors of war. The vehicles they chose would not and could not deliver, but nevertheless they rejected war having seen its reality.

Anzac day is an attempt to paper over that and prepare the next generation for volunteering to make the ultimate sacrifice, and justifying our continuing foreign adventures in far away places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn...

Allan Glen, my step Grandad went ashore at Galibolu (Gallipoli) on that fateful day, he was 15 yrs old. I recall him at 83yrs of age (Christmas 1983) cutting down stumps for firewood and chucking them about like he was a 25 yr old. Fondly remembered!

Robert Gibbs, Best Man at my wedding in 1989, went through the Siege of Tobruk with his brothers (3 x) then sent to Atherton Tablelands in QLD for jungle training prior to going to Kokoda Track. Only he survived the war, losing his brothers there.

Rest in Peace.

On the night of the HMAS Voyager Disaster, my upstairs neighbour Mrs Teape lost her husband and the father of her kids. In 1996 I lost brothers in the Townsville Black Hawk incident.

I joined up in 1977 as a 32nd Class Apprentice at Appy School, & still proudly serve 31 yrs later as a ‘Chocko‘ trying to do proud all who came before me. Bob Gibbs passed away in 1994, and still his family will say I was the only person to whom he related anything about his war experiences - I am, as I write, still in awe that he did this after all he suffered for each and everyone of us in this wonderful country today. I am sorry that I was not in the position to write at least some of it down for posterity.

The phrase often referred to:, "No greater love..." rings as true today as then.

The men and women who served and died, and those still with us today should be revered, for if they had not gone before us with their mindset of "can do" - "will do" and Duty Served. Then just what would the Australia of today look like? They would say in return perhaps -" No… we simply did what had to be done..."

Yes war is a folly of the greatest human magnitude, a tragic and undeniably stupid endeavour. But usually driven by politics of the day.

Thank you all and God bless.

Passy,

I find it truly staggering that any remotely functional human being could still believe in “the revolution”. The brutality of communist regimes across the world and their consequent rejection by the people they were supposed to be rescuing has made it abundantly clear to all but the MOST brain damaged among us that Communism is BAD!|!|!

For example your wonderful revolution sweeping away the TSAR resulted in the purges and mass starvations of Stalin. You people whinge that Stalinism wasn’t real communism. Oh Contraire. Stalinism is the inevitable offspring of communism. The pattern is just far too regular to ignore. Just see Mao, Pol Pot, Ceasecu and the rest.

How one earth you get the gall to call Churchill, the saviour of western Europe a war-monger I’ll never know. Certainly there would have been no more revolution in Greece, Yugoslavia or Russia for that matter without Churchill. The Nazis, if they had been able to turn their full attentions to Russia, would have conquered it within 6 months.

In the end it wasn’t Churchill who declared war, it was Chamberlain. Churchill merely pulled together the threads which allowed Britain to resist the attacks of the Nazis, and later go over to the offensive, ridding the world of Nazism. This is a truly great contribution to history. A remarkable man.

SJF,

Sorry which european countries were just handed over? Do you mean the parts in which the Red Army had already driven out the Nazis? You know; that Red Army which was 3 times bigger than the combined Allied forces?

No one gave over those countries. The communists took them and it would have required a war to take them back. Something the Allies were unremarkably not that keen upon.

Churchill did his best at Yalta to free the people of Eastern Europe. Stalin had agreed to the principle of a liberated Europe, which stated that liberated peoples would have the right to democratic self government. Stalin also agreed that Poland would hold democratic, free elections as soon as feasible. As we know Stalin never allowed them.

Paul L

Stalin represented the defeat of the revolution. He established capitalism in Russia where the state became the embodiment of capital and exploited workers.

Read Sandra Bloodwoth: How Workers took power: the 1917 revolution. Or Tony Cliff on State Capitalism in Russia.

Yalta was about the three imperialisms dividing up the spoils after the war. None of them gave a hoot about democracy. Churchill supported Stalin's bloody takeover of Eastern Europe.

Churchill was a warmonger. Look at the Boer war, look at his failed war efforts in World War One, including Galipoli from memory.

His time came when the inevitable war between Germany and Britain erupted, an inevitability made possible by the counter-revolutionary nature of Stalinism, the late development of Germany as a capitalist power, the inability of German capitalism to expand on a world wide scale because Britain, and the US , were dominant, and the failure of the revolutions from 1917 to 1936 to succeed and spread.

Socialism is the working class - the majority - organising production and other facets of life democratically to satisfy human need. Capitalism cannot organise adequately to feed at least 1 bn people. It is for profit, not people.

Mao? The working class played no part in this essentially nationalist revolution which imposed state capitalism on society. Pol Pot? What working class? Actually the US supported him, not the left in Australia. Ceausescu? He came to power partly through Russian arms. What is socialist about that? His execution was a day for socialists to celebrate, just as the downfall of the Berlin wall was a day for celebration for socialists.

As hunger, famine, war, environmental and economic crisis stalk the world, I think the Bolsheviks slogans are more relevant now than in 1917.

All power to the workers councils. Bread, land and peace.

Otherwise there will be the common ruination of the contending classes.

Anzac day is an important part of the propaganda for the system. A bit like all those Red Square days really, when Soviet troops and their new fangled arms paraded in front of the Russian ruling class.

Passy

Good posts!

Pericles

‘Let's face it, there weren't many Swiss or Irish in that particular transmigration.’

I can’t speak for the Swiss. However, your portrayal of Ireland as a nation that somehow profited from its neutrality in WWII shows a woeful ignorance of Irish history. This is understandable, given the tendency of our British-inherited education system to reduce Irish history to no more than an occasional pest in British history.

The Irish came to Australia in droves throughout the 20th century because for much of that century, it was still a society devastated by the aftermath of a colonial occupation that had left it crippled economically, culturally and psychologically. To this very day, no British administration has ever shown an ounce of remorse for its crimes against the Irish people.

These Irish migrants were also war-ravaged refugees. It just wasn’t the kind of war that Australia likes to include in its official narrative of glorious military endeavour.

Paul.L

‘No one gave over those countries. The communists took them and it would have required a war to take them back. Something the Allies were unremarkably not that keen upon.’

Aha!!

Let me get this straight. The Allies could have fought a war with the Soviets to save half of Europe from totalitarian Communism. However, they CHOSE not to have that war.

C-H-O-S-E.

Ultimately, that’s the basis of all wars. Choice. You can choose to have them and you can choose to not have them.

Unfortunately, the choice to go to war is routinely made by effete, cowardly politicians hiding behind armies of young men (and more recently women) who have been brainwashed from birth that it is sweet and noble to die for one’s country.

Commemorations like Anzac Day are essential to that brainwashing. If Gallipoli had not happened, we would have had to invent it.

KatieO

‘SJF, … If you have a problem with government services, then it might be prudent to take it up with the appropriate government department, or your local member, not harangue war vets over their entitlements.’

Oh yeah … Can’t you just see Veterans Affairs writing back to me:

“Dear Madam,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter regarding our wasteful expenditure on non-means-tested welfare to war veterans who are rolling in money.

You’re absolutely right of course, and I will take this matter straight to both the Minister for Defence and the President of the RSL. I am in no doubt that they will take every measure to ensure that all wasteful military spending is not allowed to continue.

This of course will mean a considerable decrease in both their incomes, due to having to slash a billion or so from the DoD coffers, but I am sure they will be more than willing to see that justice is done.

Thank you for bringing this urgent matter to our attention.

Yours sincerely,
Ms Dogsbody
(Temp admin assistant on school work experience)

On behalf of the Honourable Minister for Veterans Affairs”

Passy,

Warmonger: a person or agency that advocates war or tries to bring about a war.

Well the Boers started the Boer war, The Germans started WW1 and WW2 so tell me how that makes Churchill a warmonger? Failed efforts in WW1 doesn’t make someone a war monger. That’s a ridiculous premise.

So you are suggesting that it wasn’t the Germans fault that they started WW2. is that what you are saying?

Churchill did not support Stalins’ takeover of Eastern Europe. But that is irrelevant anyway. The Soviets took Eastern Europe by force of arms and had no intention of giving it back.

I see Mao and Stalin were capitalists, won’t their comrades be surprised when you tell them. You seem to be continually ignoring the fact that what you call socialism has never actually existed for more than a moment. Communism inevitably leads to dictatorship or oligarchy, it always has.

Marxist guidelines studiously ignore the realities of history and human nature.

If you can’t tell the difference between the Soviets military parades and our remembrance of our war dead then your critical faculties are obviously inactive or non existent.

SJF,

Yes we could have chosen to make war on the Soviets. We would have lost, many more people would have died, and the Soviets might have taken more of Europe than they already had. Some choice. So you are trying to suggest that we chose to fight WW2 when we didn’t really need to, is that right? Because that would be a truly stupid suggestion.

I consider it brainwashing to be a soft leftie who believes that we weren’t justified in fighting WW1 and WW2. I think that takes a real leap of faith that only a brainwashed person could take.

The benefits of not being bombed flat tend to be filed under "the bleedin' obvious", SJF.

>>your portrayal of Ireland as a nation that somehow profited from its neutrality in WWII shows a woeful ignorance of Irish history.<<

But it was more the morality of their stance that doesn't bear examination. De Valera was not simply anti-English, he was blatantly pro-Nazi. Both he and the president Douglas Hyde made a point of recording their sorrow at Hitler's death.

Fortunately there were many tens of thousands of individual Irish volunteers who defied their leaders' opportunistic stance, and fought for the side they believed held the moral high ground.

Which is particularly interesting, in the light of your insistence that wars are entirely about power, not morality.

There was, after all, no coercion on these brave folk to fight for the allies, but they chose to do so. If you think about it, it would have been very much easier for them to justify fighting against the English, would it not?

Can you perhaps explain this differently?

Meanwhile the IRA, of course, showed their true colours by fighting for the Nazis, both openly and as terrorists.

Albie,

I was wondering if you knew that your quote re “no greater love” comes from the bible. Many contend that war = the antithesis of love. Yet the very words of Jesus are frequently associated with war memorials to affirm the sacrifice of soldiers in war.

(John 15:13):

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends

The verse is not a justification for war, which I think your post captures really well.

Actually, to put these words in the biblical context, Jesus was addressing his disciples, and this was immediately preceeded by:

(John 15:12)

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you

Jesus is asking his future Church to understand that discipleship will require sacrifices, to the point of death, and prophesying his own impending death.

ANZAC day can help us along the path of understanding sacrificial love, with Jesus being the epitome. A soldier’s death in war is the human equivalent. If I cross-reference this passage with:

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

And then contrast that with the next verse,

John 10:12 “The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away.”

Jesus died for all, not just Australians, and went to his death voluntarily, on behalf of his flock, who belong to him.

Another passage helps understand motivation, Romans 5:7 :

“For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die”.

Our ANZACs were prepared to lay down their lives, for their friends, their families and their descendents. We are the “good man” that our ANZACS died for.

At our church service yesterday, the minister talked about “Chocolate Soldiers” in the context of Christian ministry. These are the ones who melt when the heat is on. I’d rather distinguish myself in the “service” in the same spirit as the ANZACs , not the “hired hand”.

katie0: << ANZAC day can help us along the path of understanding sacrificial love, with Jesus being the epitome. >>

That's the best reason anybody's posted yet for dispensing with Anzac Day.

Anzac Day's about national identity and the stupidity of war. It's about remembering the fallen, then getting pissed and playing two-up with your mates.

If it's allowed to be hijacked by Christian nutters it will rapidly lose its real meaning and become just another holiday, like Easter or Xmas.

Katie, how nice that you still believe in the tooth fairy but you should really have watched the first part of the story of chemical warfare used in WW1 last Friday night. It might have changed your mind about the sense of war that you trumpet.

Now to set the record straight and for no other reason than I have been slandered by a fool.

My German family arrived here in 1844. My English and Welsh families in 1880 and one, only one, grandfather came in 1920 as a 15 year old solo child.

None of them were assisted migrants but the Germans were refugees from the Prussian invasion and persecution of Lutherans of the times. That makes me about a 6th or 7 generation Australian of free settler stock. Kapeesh Katie dear?

Now get over this war thing. All it does is kill people.

And Paul, Iraq had a population of 12 million children under 16, they had no real army, no navy and certainly no airforce.

So all we were doing is bombing children and unarmed civilians who did not fight. YOu cannot blame it all on the sunni/shi'ite divide because they all pretty much lived together until we invaded the joint.

The thing about Iraq is that it had not harmed us, was not going to harm us, was not about to invade anyone nor destroy anyone.

They were and are starving to death.

Marilyn,

I got the information straight from your blog. Now, on closer inspection, I see that others have misconstrued this in the past:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4400&page=0#39546

To avoid these misunderstandings, it might be kinder to update your blog. Substitute “British-background parents” with “Australian”. For a seventh generation Australian, that is actually quite a misleading way to describe your parentage. Is it the same as saying “white Australian”?

And your grandfather’s story is part of the ANZAC narrative, obviously, which sheds a whole new light on your post. You are very selective in the information that you put out there. Tainting all ANZACs with the behaviour of one (Mentally ill? Predatory? Shell-shocked?) soldier defies credibility.

The only point I was making, was that as an Australian (1st, 7th generation, no difference), there needs to be an acknowledgement of what previous generations have achieved for you (Pericles, I wasn’t passing judgement on the post-war immigration scheme, I was establishing a (superfluous) link between MS and the ANZACs, however, appreciate that more sensitivity is required to the drivers of that scheme).

I’m not pro-war Marilyn (war as a "failure of the imagination" as you define it), however, I believe we, as a nation, need courage and conviction moving forward. I think it may have been easier for previous generations of Australians to “pull together” when the threats were external and foreign. There appears to be very little to unite us (Australia) when the bogey man is not as obvious, when our media and universities are being infiltrated by foreign interests, and when we (Australians) are unprepared to take a “tough love” stance on the issues which undermine our freedom.

Marilyn

You say>> “ Iraq had a population of 12 million children under 16, they had no real army, no navy and certainly no airforce.”

The IISS gave the Iraqi Army's force structure as of 1 July 1997 as seven Corps headquarters, six armoured or mechanised divisions, 12 infantry divisions, 6 RGF divisions, four Special Republican Guard Brigades, 10 commando, and two Special Forces Brigades. It was estimated to number 350,000 personnel, including 100,000 recently recalled reservists.

America and the coalition went into Iraq with less than half that number.

You say >> “You cannot blame it all on the sunni/shi'ite divide because they all pretty much lived together until we invaded the joint.”

I realize absolutely anybody can have a blog these days but I thought you had to have at least a modicum of intelligence. Does it now occur to you why they lived together in peace for so long? Remember the bloke called Saddam whose security forces gassed tens of thousands of his own citizens? Have you not heard of the exploits of Saddams mukhabarat? Have a read of this. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12218

You say >> “They were and are starving to death.”

Saddam might have been starving them during the period in which sanctions were imposed. Where is your evidence that people are starving to death now? My bet is you don’t have any, you are just flapping your gums.

Pericles

A very rushed response I'm afraid, due to little time and because I’ll be away for several days.

De Valera was not pro-Nazi, although he was certainly accused of it often enough – as neutral foreign policies are always distorted by the eye of the beholder.

De Valera’s own rhetoric and the neutrality propaganda he oversaw were strongly opposed to a world made dangerous by the domination by large powers and their largely self-serving alliances (a belief I share). He tried to forge an Ireland that stood for the right of small nations to remain neutral. This was also his motivation for his official expression of regret to the German Ambassador to Ireland on Hitler’s demise – not any sorrow that an evil mass murderer had finally found the sense to top himself.

The tens of thousands of Irish who volunteered in both world wars are not that surprising, given the strong pro-British, Anglo-Irish, anti-nationalist population in Ireland hung over from British rule, and that exists in Ireland to this day. However, the numbers of Irish who volunteered for WWII under its neutrality policy (120,000) was only about half that of WWI under British rule (210,000). This indicates to me that voluntary enlistment had a lot more to do with political mobilization and its accompanying propaganda rhetoric rather than an intrinsic belief in the moral rightness of the British stance in either war.

If the post is still alive when I check back, I may address your IRA comments then.

That's one interpretation SJF

>>the numbers of Irish who volunteered for WWII under its neutrality policy (120,000) was only about half that of WWI under British rule (210,000). This indicates to me that voluntary enlistment had a lot more to do with political mobilization and its accompanying propaganda rhetoric rather than an intrinsic belief in the moral rightness of the British stance in either war.<<

There's also a school of thought that WWI represented a good meal ticket.

http://www.waterfordcountymuseum.org/exhibit/web/Display/article/31/

"Many of the recruits came from the urban poor, joining the army was seen as an opportunity to better oneself. The pay was good in comparison to what was available at home and an allowance was also paid to the spouse of the soldier while he was away on duty. This made the army financially attractive to the Irish poor.<<

The article also points out that this became a less attractive option after the Easter Rising, at which point anti-English feelings outweighed the possibility of a good wage.

No-one really knows how many volunteers joined the fight against Hitler.

http://www.bisa.ac.uk/2007/pps/kelly.pdf

I notice you still think of WWII as being driven by "the moral rightness of the British", instead of nations uniting against Fascism.

Curious.

But with De Valera's reluctance to recognize the moral imperative, it was left to the motivation of the individual.

As the editor of the Times, R.M. Smyllie remarked, "it is fairly safe to say that between 150,000 and 180,000 young Irishmen served under the British flag, and it must not be forgotten that everyone of them was a volunteer".

I guess it would be fair to say that De Valera's "neutrality" was political, but the moral weight was clearly on the side of those who volunteered.

Exactly the opposite to your argument that wars are not based on moral values, but power.

Dontyer just hate leaving things unfinished?

"Ginx: chill"
Posted by katieO, Friday, 2 May 2008 6:57:30 PM
_________

Sorry this is belated,-OLO does tend to run at breakneck speed..

ktO-you would not believe how much I 'chilled' as you so succinctly and eloquently put it!!-(unlike your posts).

Marilyn S-before the chilling came the whining..oooohhh the WHINING!

Still...I DID get to see you two come floating pass in little pink tutu's knocking the hell out of each other with your little silver wands...then came the whining,-and clicking the little gizmo by my side.
More chilling...,BOZO came floating past;-he was decked out like UBLaden..!? Very strange.
More whining.., click;-chilling...Soft-Left Paully is here looking suspiciously like Karl Marx! HA!! I'm enjoying this...;until I start whining again.
Click-chilling: here comes Thatcher's Boy;-he is wearing a cloak of ermine and a crown..silly TB!!

(Gibs was zipping around in his flying saucer btw. Dear ol' Gibs!)

Gawd! I LOVE Morphine! Eventually when the whining stopped, they unplugged me and prised the clicker from my hands;-alas! no more chilling.

_____________________________________

The above is as relevant to ANZAC Day as those who have chosen to take the day and use it for their own anti-British rants/glorification of war/and whatever other reason to give the day a bollocking.

I have posted here, because the ANZAC thread downstairs still has the fellas running around and thumping on their chests.
They do it so well;-best not disturb them.

_________________________________

I said it before; I'll say it again: I will leave it to those who saw combat-FOR WHATEVER THE REASON-to decide on the relevance of the day.

Pericles

‘I notice you still think of WWII as being driven by "the moral rightness of the British", instead of nations uniting against Fascism.’

I don’t subscribe to either belief about WWII – neither moral rightness nor unity against Fascism. WWII was just a carbon copy of virtually every war fought in Europe since the Romans – a struggle for dominance of the continent, strategic access to the Middle and Far East, and imperial control of the rest of the world.

‘There's also a school of thought that WWI represented a good meal ticket [for Irish volunteers].’

Of course it did! Ireland was an impoverished country under British rule and for decades after. But that’s a whole history lesson in itself that lies outside the scope of this thread. Also, poverty is an essential feature of authoritarian regimes the world over, as it provides an endless supply of military recruitment.

‘Meanwhile the IRA, of course, showed their true colours by fighting for the Nazis, both openly and as terrorists.’

The dangers of the IRA-Nazi collaboration have been greatly overblown by British tabloid journalists and Alistair McLean novels. It comprised little more than a few cloak and dagger meetings and one aborted submarine landing. The IRA were only interested in obtaining German assistance to wrest control of Northern Ireland from the British. They had no interest in helping the Nazis to invade England or win the war.

Nevertheless, de Valera viewed the IRA-Nazi collaboration as a threat to Irish neutrality and interned 5000 IRA members without trial until the end of the war.

Ginx

'I will leave it to those who saw combat-FOR WHATEVER THE REASON-to decide on the relevance of [Anzac] day.'

That's as it should be, but the reality is otherwise. The day has become so hijacked by notions of national identity and military-mystique conditioning among the young, that all Australians must now have a stake in deciding its relevance.

I'm not sure that you really believe this, SJF, it's simply your way of closing off an important issue - the morality of entering or staying out of a war.

>>I don’t subscribe to either belief about WWII – neither moral rightness nor unity against Fascism. WWII was just a carbon copy of virtually every war fought in Europe since the Romans – a struggle for dominance of the continent, strategic access to the Middle and Far East, and imperial control of the rest of the world.<<

I guess to you, the holocaust and its six million Jewish casualties were simply "collateral damage" in a struggle for dominance?

And objecting to a regime that held human life in such scant regard was simply a political statement, not a moral one?

>>The dangers of the IRA-Nazi collaboration have been greatly overblown by British tabloid journalists and Alistair McLean novels. It comprised little more than a few cloak and dagger meetings and one aborted submarine landing.<<

The fact that they were incompetent does not detract from their intent.

It also overlooks the innate anti-Semitism of the IRA, dating right back to Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Féin, who published antisemitic articles in the "United Irishman" at the turn of the century.

Then there was the unedifying sight of Eoin O'Duffy ex IRA Chief of Staff who split with de Valera to form the Blueshirts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blueshirts

He was recorded as telling the Dail that "the Blackshirts have been victorious in Italy and Hitler's Brownshirts have been victorious in Germany, as assuredly the Blueshirts will be victorious in Ireland"

Against this background, it is not hard to see where their sympathies lay, is it? Their anti-Semitism survives today, as noted by the Wiesenthal Centre in 2003... "Ireland is the only World War II neutral to have never confronted its dealings with Nazi Germany"

Once again SJF, the theme here is moral imperatives, or motivations if you will, to join one side or the other in a conflict.

The accretion of power is a distant second in this race, I think.

"Ginx

'I will leave it to those who saw combat-FOR WHATEVER THE REASON-to decide on the relevance of [Anzac] day.'

That's as it should be, but the reality is otherwise. The day has become so hijacked by notions of national identity and military-mystique conditioning among the young, that all Australians must now have a stake in deciding its relevance."
Posted by SJF, Sunday, 11 May 2008 11:36:40 AM
_______________________________

I will leave it to those who saw combat-FOR WHATEVER THE REASON-to decide on the relevance of [Anzac] day.

Pericles

You talk of neutrality as if it is morally passive inaction, when it isn’t.

In a world dominated by dangerous political and military alliances, neutrality is a proactive stance and takes enormous moral courage. Ireland didn’t just ‘fall into’ neutrality in WWII. It had actively maintained its position of neutrality since 1922 despite sustained ‘moral’ pressure to align itself with the big powers, a pressure that continues to this day.

It was also a stance that was almost unanimous among the members of the Dail at the time. Even so, there is plenty of evidence that Ireland did help the WWII Allied effort by providing intelligence and other assistance.

---
Re Ireland and the Jews, I confess that I don’t know a great deal about the subject. However, from what I’ve read over the past couple of days, a few points …

1. The Allies did not go to war over the Holocaust, although they like to rewrite history to make it look as if they did.

2. The Wiesenthal Centre comment you provided was lifted from a Unionist hate site – as is most ‘Nazi Ireland’ and ‘anti-semitic Ireland’ material. Whether or not the comment is genuine, the context is much too hysterical to be taken seriously.

3. Ireland was no more or less anti-Semitic than any other Western society at the time. Anti-semitism was quite mainstream until the horrors of the Holocaust made the West confront the consequences of its anti-Semitic past. You can take a selection of quotes and incidents from any country pre-WWII and make a case to say that it was an anti-Semitic country.

4. There definitely were some crazed, pro-Nazi people in the IRA (as in the Loyalist paras and even the British aritstocracy), but it was not official IRA policy. The IRA was much more anti-British and anti-Protestant than anti-Semitic. The Jews were the least of their worries. Indeed, some IRA members actually worked with the Irish government in providing intelligence and other assistance to the Allies.

(to be contd.)

Pericles

(contd...)

5. De Valera was honoured by the Irish Jewish community in 1966, with a forest planted in his name at Kfar Kana near Nazereth ‘for his many years of devoted service in the cause of peace and freedom’ – something that could never have happened if Dev was as anti-semitic or pro-Nazi as his anti-neutrality detractors would have us believe.

6. There has been a Memorial Holocaust Day held in Ireland every year since 2003, when the Irish Justice Minister made an official apology for Ireland’s failure to accept Jewish refugees during the war. (Many other nations at the time had the same policy, including the US and Canada.) Even so, about 60 Jewish refugees were admitted to Ireland during the war.

7. As far as I know, Britain has never held any ‘Great Irish Famine Day’ or offered any official apology for the millions who died as a direct consequence of its occuapation. On the contrary, the British establishment acts as if Ireland should apologise to Britain over the Troubles. This is despite the UK being the only European nation ruled guilty by the European Court of Human Rights of practicing ‘cruel and degrading treatment’ on its own (Republican) citizens.

PS Much as I’ve been enjoying this debate, I’m really pushed for time at present to post much more on this. You’ll probably have the last word (which is fine by me).

PPS You might be interested to know that I first became a lifelong pacifist during Grade 11 Ancient History, when I learned about the tragedy of the island of Melos - horifically punished for trying to stay neutral during the Peloponnesian War. Indeed, the punishment was exacted by the Athenian Empire under the rule of your namesake. Might this have anything to do with your views on neutrality?

You think so, SJF?

>>You talk of neutrality as if it is morally passive inaction, when it isn’t.<<

I certainly do not consider neutrality as "morally passive", nor do I consider it in any way to connote inactivity.

Neutrality in WWII, in the case of both Ireland and Switzerland, was a deliberate, cynical and morally barren stance.

>>The Allies did not go to war over the Holocaust, although they like to rewrite history to make it look as if they did.<<

Oh, please. Hindsight is a given, but re-writing history? Who, please?

Your argument here would seem to be that simply because no-one was able to foresee the depths to which Nazi Germany would sink in its persecution of Jews, it was not possible to discern ahead of time that they were fundamentally evil.

Or perhaps you were saying that it was only the Irish and the Swiss who could not see anything abnormal in Kristallnacht?

Just a bit of craic, the bhoys havin' themselves some fun, eh?

I was pretty sure the Great Famine would appear in your argument at some point.

>>As far as I know, Britain has never held any ‘Great Irish Famine Day’ or offered any official apology for the millions who died as a direct consequence of its occuapation. On the contrary, the British establishment acts as if Ireland should apologise to Britain over the Troubles.<<

For your information, I believe that the British Government acted atrociously throughout the Great Hunger, and wouldn't even consider defending their actions. But that argument would lead me to believe, even more strongly, that Ireland's neutrality in WWII had more to do with its hatred of anything English, than "a proactive stance [taking] enormous moral courage".

Being a "lifelong pacifist" does not excuse you from assessing the pacifism of others on its own merits, rather than automatically attributing to it your own motives.

In other words, I am perfectly prepared to accept that your own pacifism is the product of a deep moral conviction; I simply don't see the same in the Swiss or the Irish in WWII.

Pericles

Damn!

I didn’t intend to post again to this thread, but I can’t let this quote pass:

‘But that argument would lead me to believe, even more strongly, that Ireland's neutrality in WWII had more to do with its hatred of anything English, than "a proactive stance [taking] enormous moral courage.’

If that’s the case, how then do you explain Ireland’s neutrality in every conflict before and since WWII? You are giving Britain far too much importance in Irish affairs. (That’s understandable – the British do it all the time, and not just with Ireland.)

Also, you conveniently ignore the fact that the Irish government DID involve itself considerably in the Allied war effort and officially allowed its citizens to enlist according to their conscience. That is not morally barren behaviour. The difference is that its participation in WWII was done on its own terms, not according to the agenda of more powerful nations.

… Or this quote:

‘Neutrality in WWII, in the case of both Ireland and Switzerland [and Spain and Portugal and Sweden??], was a deliberate, cynical and morally barren stance.’

What I call ‘deliberate, cynical and morally barren’ is Australia’s foreign policy, which dictates that Australia MUST enter ANY conflict undertaken by those with whom it is aligned by treaty – REGARDLESS of the morality or political context of that conflict. It would take at least ten more posts to cover all the immoral conflicts in which Australia has become – and is still – embroiled, because it cannot stand on its own two feet and say: 'NO, this is not our quarrel. They are not our enemy. This is not our war.'

We'll agree to differ, SJF.

I still believe you are projecting your own commitment to pacifism onto a country that doesn't deserve it, but I'm happy to let you have the last word.