Vietnam was ugly and Gallipoli was romantic. Ray Martin knows the difference.



U.O.G. I’m with you on this. The entire war industry, past and present, is a crock. Legend status makes it palatable for whoever wasn’t killed or whoever killed another, as well as give shallow purpose to today’s youth looking for something to hang a flag on.

Not sure why the article berates one PM who loathed ceremonial guff but doesn’t mention another who turned Gallipoli into a nationalist shrine, pop music and all.

I’m still chuckling over the Australian Army’s TV advertising campaign a few years ago showing images of smiling, tanned Aussie soldiers comforting poor darkskinned children, building shelters and essential infrastructure. The new caring, sharing Army. Travel to far away lands, meet interesting people...and kill them.

memo to author – PTSD is common in all shooting wars. Rwanda was a mess from day one; can you cite a war that wasn’t?

I have an article on Remembrance Day on my blog (www.enpassant.com.au) which OLO is going to run, I think.

My argument is that the war glorifiers have won the battle for the soul of the Day. They use it to prepare the next generation of Australian workers to die in a war for capital.

Australia has historically sent troops in support of its Big Imperialist brother as an insurance policy - to reinforce the Alliance and to enable us to act as imperialists in "our" region.

"Dwelling on Gallipoli, to me, seems perverse; the slaughter of Australians at the hands of English officers for absolutely no gain. The annual hoo hah and pilgrimage to the battle site is more of an insult than an honour."

"How the author can say that the circumstances of Gallipoli and Vietnam are almost the same is hard to figure. There is no similarity between a World War, and intervention in a small country which was no threat to Australia or any other country."
Turkey posed no threat to Australia. North Vietnam, unless you believed in the Domino Theory, also posed no threat to Australia. Australians went to Gallipoli to support the Mother Country. In 1914 most Australians still had near relatives in England. So they, like Canadians and New Zealanders and Souths Africans and Poms went to war.
With Vietnam, rightly or wrongly the Menzies governmment like the Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon governments decided to support the South Vietnamese Government. Like Gallipoli our efforts were in vain.
"the slaughter of Australians at the hands of English officers". Cripes in 2008 do we still have persons blaming English officers for the slaughter? The slaughter was not restricted to troops commanded by English officers; look at the casualities of the Turks at Gallipoli and on the Western and Eastern fronts look at the horrible casualities on both sides.
"The annual hoo hah and pilgrimage to the battle site is more of an insult than an honour."
An insult to whom? Do a little bit of family history research and you will find just about every family in Australia in the war years had a relative killed or injured in the Great War. Think how lucky we are.
We had conscription for Vietnam to top up our volunteer army. In the Great War, Australia was the only country that had a volunteer army.( which by the way was the highest paid). Just read a little bit about the soldier's lot in the Great War before you in the safety of 2008 demean their effort and those of subsequent generations who honour them.

"By contrast, the deep and bitter divisions in the Australian population over our participation in WWI has been expunged from virtually all teaching on the subject and from virtually all media coverage on Anzac and Remembrance Days."

"Average Australians – drip-fed on sentimental tales of young lads putting up their age to enlist – are unaware that our WWI enlistments had actually dried to a trickle by as early as 1915. Neither are most Australians aware of the two conscription referendums in 1916 and 1917, both of which were defeated (the second by an increased majority, and helped by a majority No vote by soldiers serving at the front)."
Dear SJF
Just read a little about Australia's involvement in WW1. Australia was the only country supporting the Mother Country that never resorted to conscription. "dried to a trickle by as early as 1915". Where did you pluck this statement from? Australia had no engagement until Gallipoli in April 1915.
"Neither are most Australians aware of the two conscription referendums in 1916 and 1917, both of which were defeated (the second by an increased majority, and helped by a majority No vote by soldiers serving at the front)." Yes the volunteer soldiers at the Western Front voted against conscription. Why? Because even they would not wish the "shirkers" back in Australia to suffer the horror that they and their comrades endured.
Who has expunged the divisions in Australia over conscription? Divisions in Australia certainly occurred over conscription but they were the result of Archbishop Mannix and his support for Irish Independence and opposition to conscription, divisions which affected Australian political and social life right through to the 60s. But this was about opposition to conscription not Australia's involvement in the war.
SJF pop down to your library and read a little more or get your teacher to help you. You might find it rewarding

‘“dried to a trickle by as early as 1915". Where did you pluck this statement from?’

Yes. My wording here was sloppy. I meant that the process by which the enlistments finally dried to a trickle by 1917 had started as early as 1915 – not that it WAS a trickle in 1915.

In all, only 37% of eligible Australian men enlisted during the four years of the war. The year-by-year enlistment figures are (Source: ‘A Military History of Australia’, Jeffrey Grey):

1914 - 52,561 (4 months only)
1915 - 165,912
1916 - 124,355
1917 - 45,101
1918 - 28,883

On the rare occasions this information ever makes it into the war literature, the drop in numbers is explained away by the receipt of news of mounting casualties at Gallipoli and the Somme.

This is only partly true. The more likely explanation is that the initial intakes of the earlier war years comprised mainly those young men who believed in the righteousness of the war or who succumbed to the guilt and shame of being called ‘skulkers’, ‘shirkers’ and weaklings – leaving behind those who didn’t.

‘Divisions in Australia certainly occurred over conscription but they were the result of Archbishop Mannix and his support for Irish Independence and opposition to conscription …’

… as well as the Australian Catholic Church in general, International Workers of the World, the ALP (which split with the PM over the issue), the trade union movement, the internationally aligned Women’s Peace Army, the Queensland Government (alone among the states), the Quakers and concerned citizens. Many were shamed, harassed, physically attacked, jailed and/or deported for their efforts, indeed for their very beliefs.

WW1 recruiting was a problem in the first half of 1915. So much so that the height restriction was lowered from 5 feet 6 inches to enable the many thousands who had been rejected on that basis to come forward again and to to make eligible the many thousands who didn't bother because they knew they were too short under the old rules.

My grandfather was 5 feet 4 and within days of the height restriction being lowered to 5 feet 2 inches he and many more joined the Bantam Army (the British term - their height requirement was a mere 5 feet nothing).