Imagine that the Japanese invaded northern Australia during WW2, inflicted massive casualties on the defending forces but were eventually defeated by brilliant leadership and the courage and endurance of the defending forces. Now imagine that a few years after the war ended, they began to organise tourist trips to visit the battlefields and honour their fallen dead. How would we respond?

This is pretty much what happened to the Turks at Gallipoli. They were defending their homeland against invasion, and suffered terrible hardships and massive casualties – more than 80,000 dead, compared to just 8,709 Australians.

Yet as anyone who has visited Gallipoli in recent years will attest, the Turks extend a gracious and generous welcome to visiting Australians. This is not a new phenomenon. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who led the Turks’ Gallipoli campaign and went on to be seen as the founder of modern Turkey penned these words a few years after the war:

"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."

A little flowery for modern tastes, perhaps, but the generosity of the sentiment is breathtaking.

So, I wonder, as as we approach another ANZAC day. Would we be as gracious to our former enemies if we had suffered as the Turks did? And can the peculiar bond that this generosity of spirit has forged between Australians and Turks shed some light on how to heal the growing 21st century rift between Muslims and westerners?

I don't know if there's to much of a rift between me and a muslim. It 's extremists doing the bombings.

World war one was 'fortunate' in one respect, it was generally fairly obvious who the enemy was. They were almost always in a uniform and shooting at you and they were doing so because they were made to through enlistment or "the lottery". That's what we and the turks have in common and the repect was forged even during the battles and carried on after the war.

This "muslim" issue is vastly different.

Rhian, I do see the point that you are trying to make, and in a lot of respects I agree with your conclusion that we would not have been so magnanimous. There are though a few points where the situations differ somewhat:

1. Even during the times of battle at Gallipoli, there was respect between the Anzac forces and the Turks. I hear no stories of the same respect between us and the Japanese (not to say they dont exist though)

2. We invaded Turkey with the aim to capture the capital and remove a combatant from the war - trying to end it sooner. The Japanese did not have this goal with Australia

3. The Gallipoli campaign was a major driving force in creating an Australian identity. The Japanese identity was already well formed over hundreds of years. I am not suggesting that this should make a difference to the Turks, but just drawing a further distinction.

4. The role of Australia in WW1 and WW2 was to defend the invaded against an aggressor. To do this we had to be involved with invading countries that were aligned against us, true, but the overall theory was that we did so not for our own good, but to help others not strong enough to help themselves. This was not the case with the Japanese.

This last point in particular makes me reflect that our stance has changed in recent years. We are now aligned with the aggressor, the one who invades other countries first. Perhaps this is why other countries are changing how they view us. I am not at all sure that this is a good thing...

Country Gal
You make some good points, but while they help to explain the way Australians feel about the conflict, I'm not sure we could expect them to cut much ice with the Turks. I’d guess they would have felt the invaders were the aggressors, and with good reason.

StG, also good points. I can’t think of any recent conflict where there was the degree of respect between combatants that you talk of. Maybe it’s a feature of past age.

Oh bugger. Apologies to Rhian - it seems that I've unintentionally plagiarised you in responding to Boazy's silly rant about ANZAC Day supposedly being politically incorrect (or some such nonsense)>

Country Gal: If that's your impression of WW1, then you need to (re-)read some history. The objective of invading the Ottoman Empire, was, in a sense, to put them out of the war. However, the Russians, British and French (and to a lesser extent, other powers) had designs on the Ottoman Empire. This is evidenced by the fact that after the war, despite having promised independence to many of the ethnic minorities in the Ottoman Empire, the British and French took over the eastern part of the Mediterranean.

However, the story doesn't end there. These "Allies" actually occupied Turkey itself, with the intention of dividing up Anatolia between them. Ataturk didn't go from the commander at Gallipoli to abolishing the fez in one simple step. Between 1918 and 1923, Ataturk had to fight the British, French, Italians and Greeks out of what is modern Turkey.

A few years ago, I met a British Jew who had an Italian passport. Curious combination. Apparently, in the carving up of Anatolia, passports were being given out to all intellectuals, merchants, etc. (such as this guy's ancestors) in order to further weaken Turkey.

Funny what you don't know about history though, because yeah, we were "really" trying to conquer Turkey like the Japanese were trying to conquer Australia.

I think the biggest difference is that during World War 1, while there were no doubt civilian deaths in Turkey, most of those killed were professional soldiers. Modern warfare with it's collateral damage and the like creates a different type of mind set. I'm not sure the Turks would be so kind if we'd laid waste to a major city for instance.