The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Reflections on Anzac Day - why did we fight? > Comments

Reflections on Anzac Day - why did we fight? : Comments

By Brendon O'Connor, published 29/4/2008

It seems important to ask whether our forbearers fought for a just cause, or at least, a well justified cause.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
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.
Posted by katieO, Monday, 5 May 2008 8:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 9:56:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 1:14:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 7:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ginx, Thursday, 8 May 2008 1:35:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by SJF, Sunday, 11 May 2008 11:36:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy