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.

Plenty to disagree with in this article, but at least it's taking on the stagnant conformism that still infects Australia about our participation in war.

For a start, people should have a look at Humphrey McQueen's book "Japan to the Rescue", where he demonstrates that Japan had no plans to invade Australia in WW2, and in fact India was a far richer and more likely target.

I also think that Australians should support the overthrowing of the fascist Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein and the growth of a fledgling democracy there. There are plenty of huge problems to be solved in Iraq, but can any people be asked to labour under a fascist dictatorship of a minority ethnic group?

Other commenters have raised plenty of fair criticisms of the original article. But this sort of discussion is vital - when I posted a link to this article on my Twitter account, I promptly received an reply saying it was "inappropriate". Anything that helps to jolt at least some Australians out of their complacent acceptance of myths about war is not just appropriate, but damn needed.

http://bit.ly/djackmanson

Davidf,

The reason the Zionists were there was because of the Balfour Declaration, a chance to enjoy the spoils. The UK and later US motivation for the support of Zionist interests was....money to fight the war. No moral high ground there.

Chris
There is no point about remembering the flawed motives that caused our involvement in wars only that we were there and honour the military that fought (particularly those that died). Correct?

Isn't that a bit out of context and simply encouraging our youth to glorify War, follow a bunch of older men with split interests to blithely go off to fight? (NB those of Winnie the Poo in both wars , Menzies, the English.)

What's changed with The US attitude ....fight wars on other peoples' countries and disproportionate revenge, wars of financial driven conquest.

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan weren't nearly a century ago.
How have power systems improved? We're closer to inhalation today than 1914.
A world war industry that demands growth.

We have inflation to pay for wars

How did Australians in particular benefit from WW 1, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

And then there's the legacy of the monumental cock up carve up in the Middle East that we're still suffering the hang over today.

How about our disgraceful compliance to Indonesia over running East Timor. How many died there? we don't even try to get those who murdered the Aussie Balibo 5 to trial.

If we want real moral creds why haven't we (and others) gone in and sorted out perhaps the bloodiest war since WW2 the Congo, or Burma?

NB I do agree we need to honour those people who dies on our behalf and remember the forgotten dead, the innocent victims of war. At least I will.

I put it to all that the best way to honour them is to avoid any repeats. It appears that we definitely haven't learned much.

History just is, for better or worse, spinning it achieves nothing useful. Sorry Chris your argument lacks substance and objectivity.

examinator wrote: The reason the Zionists were there was because of the Balfour Declaration, a chance to enjoy the spoils. The UK and later US motivation for the support of Zionist interests was....money to fight the war. No moral high ground there.

Dear examinator,
The Gallipoli Campaign took place at Gallipoli peninsula in Turkey from 25 April 1915 to 9 January 1916. The Balfour Declaration was on 2 November 1917. Even Zionists can't see into the future.

I don't think there was any result in cash from Jews for the Balfour Declaration. That is nonsense and furthers the myth of Jewish money controlling the world.

Ok, examinator, but tell us how Aust's foreign policy should be, and why and how it could have been different today or in the past. Tell us why Aust's should not support past or present alliances.

I just wonder what those that died and fought for in the first world war would think of this country today
With the child abuse, drugs, alcohol,violence and corruption that is rampant in our society today
They really gave us "Freedom"

With all honour and respect to those fallen and those that fought may thier memory live long

It is time we showed those, that we can biuld a better world
Thanks
From Dave

Smart words Mr Chibo but cruel on this remembrance day.

Pick another day to argue the reasons, right or wrong, for our wars.

This day is for remembering those who sacrificed their limbs, minds and lives for what they thought was right at the time, or hoped was right.

To say it was all a political illusion today is demeaning for all, especially those who now cannot speak.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2009/11/remembrance-day-songs-2009.html

Davidf,
True, however the negotiation had been going on since 1901 after the world convention of Jews (it had another name but I cant recall it). I should have said that there had been negotiation along those lines.

Chris,
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. It was just I rankled at the idea that we should focus on the good as indicated by you.
As I stated History just is, time machines don't exist (except maybe Dr.Who and he's busy with aliens) so there's not a lot of point spinning it either way.

I'm saying that we should recognize the past and should work towards not repeating the it.

We badly need a new economic paradigm this one is a house of cards.

I'm not convinced Australia should have given tacit support to Indonesia about East Timor.

We weren't obliged to follow Bush 2 into either Iraq or Afghanistan. Sure there was arm twisting but it was largely because of Howard's flawed philosophy and later the even more so 'special' relationship. But that's water under the bridge. I question the morality of our part in wars as a marketing opportunity.

I believe that we should assert our independence a bit more neither am I advocating the opposite extreme. I mean the US has some outrageous attitudes that they are a law unto them selves particularly with extraditions and not being prepared to give evidence or even prima facae proof.

I wonder at the wisdom of our military direction with tanks etc. To fight wars in other continents while giving little attention to our approaching Climate wars. Especially with military purchase lead times.(interesting article on Unleashed about it)

I also wonder at our long-term wisdom being seen locally as the US deputy sheriff yet loyal puppy by the US. Perhaps we should have a wider more long term view which may include a relationship with the US as well. Remember ANZUS only means consult. Their politics are becoming more in-ward focused.

Come the revolution comrade, I'll look after you with a plumb job.
;-)

@ plantagenet: "This day is for remembering those who sacrificed their limbs, minds and lives for what they thought was right at the time, or hoped was right."

I was to pose a serious question to you and whoever else:

Why do we only remember the war dead of our own country and allies?

@ dwg: "I just wonder what those that died and fought for in the first world war would think of this country today
With the child abuse, drugs, alcohol,violence and corruption that is rampant in our society today."

You sound just like someone else I read about:
"The Nazis looked back on the Weimar republic, the Germany immediately preceding the Nazi takeover, as a society that had granted equality of status to women contrary to their natural biology and thus had estranged them from their function as mothers and guardians of the home. The result, the Nazis and their conservative allies had said, was destruction of the family, loss of respect for parents by children, growing assertiveness among women, and vast growth in homosexuality and prostitution, so much so that Berlin, in their eyes, had become the sinful Gomorrah of a degenerate civilization."
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/CH18.HTM#b1-NAZIS%20AND%20SEX

An old digger once told me: "Watch out for the wogs with their knives and the chinks with their hats".

Food for thought.

Emerson, I really tried to find something of value in your post, but all I could find was a repugnant suggestion that women shouldn't be valued as equals, lest it lead to societal instability. If I got it wrong, feel free to correct me, but as it stands it's quite disgusting.

On the whole, I concur with Chris.

It's all very well to lob hand grenades into these topics. I'm the last person who is likely to shower glory upon those who opt for war over peace.

However, I'm one of those pesky realists who accept that regardless of the ideal outcome, sometimes we have to make tough decisions.

And, when compared to alternative outcomes, I don't consider these historical events to be the worst case scenario.

Not by a long shot.

And the harshest critics also seem to be the most silent when it comes to realistic alternative versions of history. Which leads me to believe that the choices quite possibly were the best of a bad lot.

Until I hear, at the very least, some kind of indication to the contrary, that's all we've got to go on. As yet, nobody has stepped up to the plate.

Emerson,
So you would cosider that this

"country today
With the child abuse, drugs, alcohol,violence and corruption that is rampant in our society today."

is an acceptable life to bring our children up in and to leaxe them when we are gone

One word to describe that
CR4P

Thanks from
Dave

Hi TurnRightThenLeft,

Yes definitely there's been some misunderstanding.

I will try to be clear here:
Some posters such as "dwg" often express his/her opinion that our society has become something of a cess-pool of moral degradation. And that "those that died and fought for in the first world war" would probably be ashamed of our society today. I quoted a passage from "Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia" (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/BEGIN.HTM#Contents) to show that the Nazi Party held a similar stance. This had already been brought up in a recent discussion where similar sentiments were expressed. (Warick Marsh's article "Man up - save our children":http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9593) The main point being that one should be very wary of people who are on a 'moral crusade'.

Does that clear things up a bit? So, I was quoting something about the Nazis, not endorsing those views myself!

@ Emerson

"Why do we only remember the war dead of our own country and allies?"

Mainly because we are human - we remember those most like or closest to ourselves. That is the remembrance worthy in itself.

On allies - strangely our mourning is very much tied to defence of Britain in two wars. We rarely seem to remember the servicemen of the US who defended Australia close offshore in the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal. The last is a huge forgotton land, sea and air battle whose importance is ignored in Australian history.

In http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2009/11/remembrance-day-songs-2009.html I do describe a couple of German songs of remembrance with the rider that they neither celebrate the Nazi darkness nor display swastikas. I wrote:

"Remembrance does not exclude former enemies. Here is an old German song Ich hatt' einen Kameraden http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVpM8OPixds&feature=related often sung at German veterans' funerals. And then Lili Marlene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNRuNdVveeg&feature=related - which was loved by both sides in North Africa (World War II)."

@ TurnRightThenLeft

I don't know precisely what you are asking. However it is may be useful to look at the main current war in which Australians are dying. It is painted as an air and democracy spreading mission. If so it must be the most grandiose display of generosity by military means since Iraq or Vietnam.

The recipients of said military generosity respond in the way they are culturally inclined - shooting back, blowing up.

During the brief lulls between explosions the reality that we are doing it ONLY AS A US ALLY descends. War is rough politics by other means.

Dissembling "why" is something for today. Yesterday was just to remember.

Peter Coates

Emerson,

"will try to be clear here:
Some posters such as "dwg" often express his/her opinion that our society has become something of a cess-pool of moral degradation."

If you are going to be clear get this straight I aint on no moral crusade I am just sick to death of the abuse of our children

As far as a moral crusade I would be the last to launch one of those

All I want is the children to stop being abused and molested and leave them something better than we have today

Thanks from
Dave