well said. thanx.

Well said. I seriously believe it should be stapled to the front page of every newspaper, as it's something that needs to be pointed out.

Although one exception- I believe it was the Soviet Union that took Berlin- not USA.

David,

The trouble with the likes of you, John Pilger and others hell bent on telling us the obvious about many historical shortcomings is that you all seldom provide a better example of the development of other role model societies, or indicate how the world could have avoided disastrous wars given what went before it in regard to the development of ideas and the obvious madhouse struggle for resources and dominance.

It is all too easy to use Remembrance Day as another opportunity to put the boots into past Western policy decisisons that were flawed, but were made almost a hundred years ago when the world and power structures were far more ridiculous than today.

And if it was not for the UK or the US, for all of their imperfections that have not prevented Australians supporting supposed evil allies, just what kind of world would we have today?

"When the war ended in 1918, four of the major imperial powers - the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires - had been militarily and politically defeated with the victorious Imperial Allies taking over most of their former colonies."
Er what colonies of the Russian Empire were taken over by the victorious Imperial Allies? Answer none.
"The British Generals led them into some of the bloodiest battles throughout the war using brave Australian soldiers as cannon fodder."
British generals did not discriminate between brave British and brave non-British troops; all were cannon and machine gun fodder.
The author commits, as Chris Lewis notes, "the grass is greener" fallacy. He criticizes Australia's political past by comparing its actions with alternative courses of action which were either not attainable or even considered by Australians in the 20th century. Never once does David state exactly what political leaders a hundred or fifty years should have done, given Australia's then population,geographical isolation, political beliefs and cultural composition.

Those are good points, Chris Lewis. Having Russia or China in charge of the previous century is a hideous thought.

What the author reminds us, though, is that most of the wars Australia has participated in were not in self-defence against a real threat, but acts of naked imperialism, culminating in the Iraq invasion, which was founded on such feeble lies that you could almost see the neocons sniggering as they rolled out the latest unverified furphy to a credulous and frightened conservative audience.

The Australian slaughter at Gallipoli was completely unneccessary, and took place so that First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, could finish the war with a land assault his CV.

Fighting just wars is a virtuous thing to do, but Australia's history is that of an unquestioning grunt that dutifully kills whoever the oligarchs of the day demand.

It's not a history to be proud of, and reminding our young people to be more critical and discerning than we have been is of great benefit to the nation.

At Gallipoli there were also British and Zionist troops. If Gallipoli had succeeded and access to the Black Sea had been achieved supplies could have been sent to Russia. That might have prevented the Russian Revolution in February 1917 followed by the Bolshevik Coup in October. Czarist Russia could have developed into a constitutional monarchy like England instead of a Marxist dictatorship. In fact there might have been no Marxist dictatorships at all. Hitler could not have got support as a bulwark against Bolshevism as Bolshevism would not have been a threat.

Gallipoli was poorly planned and poorly implemented. There still could have been Mussolini, but I think its success would have meant that Hitler, Lenin and other scum of the early twentieth century would not have risen to power.