The ANZAC Legend and it's place in Australian Society (2 Viewers)

[Kiraken]

yeah maybe

we'll see when the shindig is



who's her



how many units do you do?



isn't that traveller's wife or something



Sorta. ANZAC Spirit I'd argue is the basis for the wider Australian never-give-up, mate-ship and whatnot attitude that we have, so yes. But ANZACs as in the soldiers... like yes, I appreciate what they did for the country, but I don't have the personal connection that some people have when they're like, "My grandfather did x, y, z and etc."

they did more for the British than Australia itself, if we are talking world war 1. The only reason Australia even participated was because Britain essentially compelled us to and at that time most of the population had direct ties to a British heritage.

I dislike some aspects of what people have made Anzac Day. I personally think Gallipoli was a total and utter disaster caused by inept leadership and the ANZACs essentially invaded another country that otherwise would not have cared for them if we had not participated in the war (and even with our participation, was unlikely to directly attack Australia). It was not a fight for our freedoms and values at all, if anything you can argue that the Turkish people were fighting to defend themselves and their values from us.

However at the same time I feel as if ANZAC day is a great day precisely because of that, because it's a day to reflect on the absolute horrors of war and how awful it can be for a population. What I am against is glorifying war as some sort of noble and justified cause when it rarely ever is and has certainly not been the case for the majority of Australian military intervention.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Re: Confessions

they did more for the British than Australia itself, if we are talking world war 1. The only reason Australia even participated was because Britain essentially compelled us to and at that time most of the population had direct ties to a British heritage.

I dislike some aspects of what people have made Anzac Day. I personally think Gallipoli was a total and utter disaster caused by inept leadership and the ANZACs essentially invaded another country that otherwise would not have cared for them if we had not participated in the war (and even with our participation, was unlikely to directly attack Australia). It was not a fight for our freedoms and values at all, if anything you can argue that the Turkish people were fighting to defend themselves and their values from us.

However at the same time I feel as if ANZAC day is a great day precisely because of that, because it's a day to reflect on the absolute horrors of war and how awful it can be for a population. What I am against is glorifying war as some sort of noble and justified cause when it rarely ever is and has certainly not been the case for the majority of Australian military intervention.

Say that in the Australian public media and you will get shamed, even though it's true

 

[nerdasdasd]

Confessions

The only time when Australia was attacked was when we got attacked by the Japanese submarines and war planes in World War Two

 

[Shadowdude]

Re: Confessions

they did more for the British than Australia itself, if we are talking world war 1. The only reason Australia even participated was because Britain essentially compelled us to and at that time most of the population had direct ties to a British heritage.

I dislike some aspects of what people have made Anzac Day. I personally think Gallipoli was a total and utter disaster caused by inept leadership and the ANZACs essentially invaded another country that otherwise would not have cared for them if we had not participated in the war (and even with our participation, was unlikely to directly attack Australia). It was not a fight for our freedoms and values at all, if anything you can argue that the Turkish people were fighting to defend themselves and their values from us.

However at the same time I feel as if ANZAC day is a great day precisely because of that, because it's a day to reflect on the absolute horrors of war and how awful it can be for a population. What I am against is glorifying war as some sort of noble and justified cause when it rarely ever is and has certainly not been the case for the majority of Australian military intervention.

And to honour those who fought (and died) for the country we enjoy today.


And this is why last night I advocated to -not- have a birthday shindig today.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: Confessions

And to honour those who fought (and died) for the country we enjoy today.


And this is why last night I advocated to -not- have a birthday shindig today.

they didn't fight for our country's values or our people per se, they fought for our political priorities, which for world war 1 were essentially "following britain"

that was my entire point lol

note that is gallipoli specifically, Australia's military intervention in PNG for example and what happened at kokoda i feel was more justified and deserves to be honoured

 

[Shadowdude]

Re: Confessions

they didn't fight for our country's values or our people per se, they fought for our political priorities, which for world war 1 were essentially "following britain"

that was my entire point lol

note that is gallipoli specifically, Australia's military intervention in PNG for example and what happened at kokoda i feel was more justified and deserves to be honoured

same thing

Did the march today, it was one of the best experiences as flag bearer for my country- something which I will never forget. Thousands of people looking at you and clapping for the entire match is a powerful feeling which I cant express in words.

How'd you get in on that?

 

[enoilgam]

Re: Confessions

they did more for the British than Australia itself, if we are talking world war 1. The only reason Australia even participated was because Britain essentially compelled us to and at that time most of the population had direct ties to a British heritage.

I dislike some aspects of what people have made Anzac Day. I personally think Gallipoli was a total and utter disaster caused by inept leadership and the ANZACs essentially invaded another country that otherwise would not have cared for them if we had not participated in the war (and even with our participation, was unlikely to directly attack Australia). It was not a fight for our freedoms and values at all, if anything you can argue that the Turkish people were fighting to defend themselves and their values from us.

However at the same time I feel as if ANZAC day is a great day precisely because of that, because it's a day to reflect on the absolute horrors of war and how awful it can be for a population. What I am against is glorifying war as some sort of noble and justified cause when it rarely ever is and has certainly not been the case for the majority of Australian military intervention.

Pretty much agree with this - the day should be used to reflect on those soldiers who died and suffered. Despite what you may think of war, I think there should be a high degree of reverence for those who fought in combat (that applies to Axis veterans of WW2 as well). Glorification of war is a no no - I think a lot of Australians forget that we invaded another country who posed no threat to us.

 

[Schmeag]

Re: Confessions

Pretty much agree with this - the day should be used to reflect on those soldiers who died and suffered. Despite what you may think of war, I think there should be a high degree of reverence for those who fought in combat (that applies to Axis veterans of WW2 as well). Glorification of war is a no no - I think a lot of Australians forget that we invaded another country who posed no threat to us.

What do you think of the recent documentaries on ANZAC individuals? I don't recall this as much in previous years.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: Confessions

Pretty much agree with this - the day should be used to reflect on those soldiers who died and suffered. Despite what you may think of war, I think there should be a high degree of reverence for those who fought in combat (that applies to Axis veterans of WW2 as well). Glorification of war is a no no - I think a lot of Australians forget that we invaded another country who posed no threat to us.

i have kinda mixed feelings about this too

i do acknowledge some people who fight in war might feel what they are fighting for is righteous/good etc. and in some cases that might be true. But I also know people in the military now who legitimately have the most infantile reasons for being there (like one literally just likes the thought of shooting things with guns, another just thinks sniping is "cool") and I'm assuming that there were people back then who also thought the same way, and I do not feel as if such people also deserve to be revered. Others genuinely believe they are defending certain values but are horribly misguided in believing so, again, do these people deserve reverance?

 

[Shadowdude]

Re: Confessions

Kinda like that Jake Kovco guy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Kovco ) - ceebs reading through the article but I remember my dad was sitting at the TV very pissed off going, "Why the hell are they giving airtime, so much airtime and news time to a guy who shot himself? wtf is this? Are we glorifying people who committed suicide now, or is it just because he's in the Army?" (FYI, this was all in Filipino and I cleaned up the language... a bit)


Regardless of their reasons, I still think that anyone who is... in the position of potentially losing their life for their country should be allowed a decent level of respect.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Re: Confessions

they did more for the British than Australia itself, if we are talking world war 1. The only reason Australia even participated was because Britain essentially compelled us to and at that time most of the population had direct ties to a British heritage.

I dislike some aspects of what people have made Anzac Day. I personally think Gallipoli was a total and utter disaster caused by inept leadership and the ANZACs essentially invaded another country that otherwise would not have cared for them if we had not participated in the war (and even with our participation, was unlikely to directly attack Australia). It was not a fight for our freedoms and values at all, if anything you can argue that the Turkish people were fighting to defend themselves and their values from us.

However at the same time I feel as if ANZAC day is a great day precisely because of that, because it's a day to reflect on the absolute horrors of war and how awful it can be for a population. What I am against is glorifying war as some sort of noble and justified cause when it rarely ever is and has certainly not been the case for the majority of Australian military intervention.

I never really got the ANZAC/Gallipoli thing for basically the same reasons. In Ireland we're all pretty strongly passionate about the independance conflicts; but that's because they physically altered our country, redrew the boundaries of our state and were a reaction against centuries of occupation and mistreatment. Gallipoli was one of the most humiliatingly crushing defeats in military history, not to mention it was an invasion of a country that didn't give a shit about Australia that was only done because we were told to do it by England. Why people choose to laud it as some amazing and heroic event is beyond me (though personally I don't think even successful military campaigns should really be glorified).

 

[enoilgam]

Re: Confessions

i have kinda mixed feelings about this too

i do acknowledge some people who fight in war might feel what they are fighting for is righteous/good etc. and in some cases that might be true. But I also know people in the military now who legitimately have the most infantile reasons for being there (like one literally just likes the thought of shooting things with guns, another just thinks sniping is "cool") and I'm assuming that there were people back then who also thought the same way, and I do not feel as if such people also deserve to be revered. Others genuinely believe they are defending certain values but are horribly misguided in believing so, again, do these people deserve reverance?

I think it's more or less to reflect on the suffering and death of those who fought.

 

[Trebla]

Re: Confessions

i have kinda mixed feelings about this too

i do acknowledge some people who fight in war might feel what they are fighting for is righteous/good etc. and in some cases that might be true. But I also know people in the military now who legitimately have the most infantile reasons for being there (like one literally just likes the thought of shooting things with guns, another just thinks sniping is "cool") and I'm assuming that there were people back then who also thought the same way, and I do not feel as if such people also deserve to be revered. Others genuinely believe they are defending certain values but are horribly misguided in believing so, again, do these people deserve reverance?

Regardless of their reasons, I still think that anyone who is... in the position of potentially losing their life for their country should be allowed a decent level of respect.

Gonna have to agree with SD here. Anything to do with decisions on war really only occurs at the very top/government level and the people/soldiers on the front line are the ones who put their lives on the line as their duty to serve the country to honour those decisions. So regardless of whether you personally believe a war was justified or not (especially with the benefit of hindsight), I think these people who fought in wars deserve every level of respect and dignity (not to mention a lot of these people were conscripted to fight in the war back then).

I never really got the ANZAC/Gallipoli thing for basically the same reasons. In Ireland we're all pretty strongly passionate about the independance conflicts; but that's because they physically altered our country, redrew the boundaries of our state and were a reaction against centuries of occupation and mistreatment. Gallipoli was one of the most humiliatingly crushing defeats in military history, not to mention it was an invasion of a country that didn't give a shit about Australia that was only done because we were told to do it by England. Why people choose to laud it as some amazing and heroic event is beyond me (though personally I don't think even successful military campaigns should really be glorified).

I think we need to dissociate the justifiability/decisions of the event from the operations within the event itself.

Whilst I don't believe the decisions were the best at the time (with the benefit of hindsight), I do feel that the people who were actually there on the ground in battle had to draw upon heroic qualities in the situation they were given. When you are on the losing end of a battle, losing your mates around you, physically exhausted as hell and the odds of you dying are quite high, it takes a LOT of strength and courage to persevere with the fight and make the best out of an adverse situation. These qualities are something that should be greatly respected and should not be devalued just because someone higher up made a bad decision.

I think it's more or less to reflect on the suffering and death of those who fought.

This and also acknowledge the qualities that they demonstrated during combat.

 

[enoilgam]

Re: Confessions

Definitely with trebs on this one.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: Confessions

Gonna have to agree with SD here. Anything to do with decisions on war really only occurs at the very top/government level and the people/soldiers on the front line are the ones who put their lives on the line as their duty to serve the country to honour those decisions. So regardless of whether you personally believe a war was justified or not (especially with the benefit of hindsight), I think these people who fought in wars deserve every level of respect and dignity (not to mention a lot of these people were conscripted to fight in the war back then).

I think we need to dissociate the justifiability/decisions of the event from the operations within the event itself.

Whilst I don't believe the decisions were the best at the time (with the benefit of hindsight), I do feel that the people who were actually there on the ground in battle had to draw upon heroic qualities in the situation they were given. When you are on the losing end of a battle, losing your mates around you, physically exhausted as hell and the odds of you dying are quite high, it takes a LOT of strength and courage to persevere with the fight and make the best out of an adverse situation. These qualities are something that should be greatly respected and should not be devalued just because someone higher up made a bad decision.


This and also acknowledge the qualities that they demonstrated during combat.

except all that assumes a few things

1. That all those soldiers were totally naive to the fact that they were fighting a country they had no reason to invade

2. That all those soldiers had entirely noble reasons for being there

3. That we did it for our country when it was moreso for Britain and the interests of international politics. Not being aware of this doesn't make u a bad person of course, but naivety isn't exactly totally worthy of respect and reverence either

I'm not saying we should disrespect them or even that we shouldn't respect them, i'm saying that it is a bit narrow to automatically respect someone simply because they fought in a war, irrespective of circumstances. Im questioning this mentality that a soldier is automatically a hero and im questioning this notion that gallipoli was heroic and im questioning the notion that war shaped our national identity.

 

[Trebla]

Confessions

except all that assumes a few things

1. That all those soldiers were totally naive to the fact that they were fighting a country they had no reason to invade

2. That all those soldiers had entirely noble reasons for being there

3. That we did it for our country when it was moreso for Britain and the interests of international politics. Not being aware of this doesn't make u a bad person of course, but naivety isn't exactly totally worthy of respect and reverence either

I'm not saying we should disrespect them or even that we shouldn't respect them, i'm saying that it is a bit narrow to automatically respect someone simply because they fought in a war, irrespective of circumstances. Im questioning this mentality that a soldier is automatically a hero and im questioning this notion that gallipoli was heroic and im questioning the notion that war shaped our national identity.

1. There is something called taking orders. Soldiers are there to serve the country, not make decisions on whether or not they should be doing so. Even if they had the hindsight knowledge that we now have, it is still their duty to follow the orders because that is their job. It's no different to the manager-employee structure in corporate workplaces where the manager makes the decisions and the employee performs the required tasks from those decisions. My argument makes no assumptions of the so-called naivety of a soldier and still holds if they knew what they were getting into. No one is suggesting that the reason we should respect them is due to their naivety, but they should be respected for reasons of how they had to handle the situation they were in.

2. My argument doesn't make that assumption at all. Regardless of what the original motives of enlisting were, they were still forced into the situation and were forced to draw upon noble qualities to react to that situation.

3. At the time it was considered that serving Britain also meant serving Australia. In a way, Australia ultimately made its own decision anyway to go to war in support of Britain so you are serving in what was perceived to be Australia's interests at the time. Either way, my point still stands as per 1).

Your questioning of the following:

- a soldier is automatically a hero
I think any soldier who has fought and is willing to risk their lives for the country is a 'hero'. The adverse situations that they get put in particularly in combat requires a lot of mental and physical strength, and I think they deserve to be respected because of that.

Just because the decisions made higher up are less than justified in your eyes doesn't make the people who risked their lives any less of a 'hero' (I use this term quite loosely). I stress the point I made about differentiating between what occurs in the ground operations (who have no role in the high level decision making) and what occurs through the higher level decision makers because they are not the same thing.

- Gallipoli was heroic
There is no doubt in my mind that soldiers in Gallipoli had to draw on heroic qualities to handle the situation they were given. It seems that your definition of heroic is related to actions which justify a cause that you personally believe in, which makes it very subjective. Once again, I stress that you should differentiate between what happens at an operational frontline level and what happens at the bigger picture level.

- notion that war shaped our national identity
If you're talking about in general then I'm not sure why you are questioning it because it seems pretty obvious that it does.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Re: Confessions

1. There is something called taking orders. Soldiers are there to serve the country, not make decisions on whether or not they should be doing so. Even if they had the hindsight knowledge that we now have, it is still their duty to follow the orders because that is their job. It's no different to the manager-employee structure in corporate workplaces where the manager makes the decisions and the employee performs the required tasks from those decisions. My argument makes no assumptions of the so-called naivety of a soldier and still holds if they knew what they were getting into. No one is suggesting that the reason we should respect them is due to their naivety, but they should be respected for reasons of how they had to handle the situation they were in.

2. My argument doesn't make that assumption at all. Regardless of what the original motives of enlisting were, they were still forced into the situation and were forced to draw upon noble qualities to react to that situation.

3. At the time it was considered that serving Britain also meant serving Australia. In a way, Australia ultimately made its own decision anyway to go to war in support of Britain so you are serving in what was perceived to be Australia's interests at the time. Either way, my point still stands as per 1).

Your questioning of the following:

- a soldier is automatically a hero
I think any soldier who has fought and is willing to risk their lives for the country is a 'hero'. The adverse situations that they get put in particularly in combat requires a lot of mental and physical strength, and I think they deserve to be respected because of that.

Just because the decisions made higher up are less than justified in your eyes doesn't make the people who risked their lives any less of a 'hero' (I use this term quite loosely). I stress the point I made about differentiating between what occurs in the ground operations (who have no role in the high level decision making) and what occurs through the higher level decision makers because they are not the same thing.

- Gallipoli was heroic
There is no doubt in my mind that soldiers in Gallipoli had to draw on heroic qualities to handle the situation they were given. It seems that your definition of heroic is related to actions which justify a cause that you personally believe in, which makes it very subjective. Once again, I stress that you should differentiate between what happens at an operational frontline level and what happens at the bigger picture level.

- notion that war shaped our national identity
If you're talking about in general then I'm not sure why you are questioning it because it seems pretty obvious that it does.

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you wouldn't consider conscripts 'heroes' in the way you'd consider those who went willingly?

I do personally thing that a lot of the 'heroic' traits like perseverance weren't really a result of some innate strength and courage, so much as the fact that going home wasn't an option so you didn't really have a choice but to keep going. If getting up and leaving was a shameless and available option you can bet most of them would have gone home, and justifiably so, they were being literally slaughtered in an ultimately totally pointless battle. When we start calling people stuck in an battle they can't win running out to be slaughtered 'heroes' I personally think we start to enter a dangerous mentality. It's that kind of mythologising and romanticising of war and those that fight it that leads people to be so pressured by society's perception of what constitutes strength and heroism that they feel as though they have to fight. And that's what leads to people being slaughtered en masse for no good reason, which is exactly what we saw in WWI. I think we should lament that we live in a world that forced young men to make such huge sacrifices for such little gain rather than building up this myth of war as something which imparts strength and grants hero status. That's all just my personal opinion though, and on an issue like this there are always going to be people who see things in different ways depending on how they view violence, war, heroism and traditional masculinity in general.

 

[Schmeag]

Re: Confessions

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you wouldn't consider conscripts 'heroes' in the way you'd consider those who went willingly?

I do personally thing that a lot of the 'heroic' traits like perseverance weren't really a result of some innate strength and courage, so much as the fact that going home wasn't an option so you didn't really have a choice but to keep going. If getting up and leaving was a shameless and available option you can bet most of them would have gone home, and justifiably so, they were being literally slaughtered in an ultimately totally pointless battle. When we start calling people stuck in an battle they can't win running out to be slaughtered 'heroes' I personally think we start to enter a dangerous mentality. It's that kind of mythologising and romanticising of war and those that fight it that leads people to be so pressured by society's perception of what constitutes strength and heroism that they feel as though they have to fight. And that's what leads to people being slaughtered en masse for no good reason, which is exactly what we saw in WWI. I think we should lament that we live in a world that forced young men to make such huge sacrifices for such little gain rather than building up this myth of war as something which imparts strength and grants hero status. That's all just my personal opinion though, and on an issue like this there are always going to be people who see things in different ways depending on how they view violence, war, heroism and traditional masculinity in general.

This seems to make sense to me: we should lament death, not to celebrate heroism. We should not be trying to distinguish between individuals and the bigger picture insofar that even if the campaign had been won, we should still be lamenting rather than celebrating. World War I was the war that lifted the illusion of glory and exposed its true horrors, if you remember "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori".

a soldier is automatically a hero

Following from the above, I would therefore say that this is a dangerous assumption to make. Patriotism is well and good, but this as a blanket statement borders on nationalism. The military fulfils a role in society, much like business, health and critical infrastructure sectors and much like these, have entry criteria and job descriptions. Purely being a soldier does not mean that one is inclined to consistently performing heroic actions, nor is it expected--in this day and age, "acting the hero" is not the job description of any profession and may put others in danger.

notion that war shaped our national identity

As we all probably realise, it is safe to say that wars have been involved in shaping our national identity. However, many other parts of history also contribute: Dreamtime, pre-1788, colonial Australia, Federation 1901...etc. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: Confessions

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you wouldn't consider conscripts 'heroes' in the way you'd consider those who went willingly?

I do personally thing that a lot of the 'heroic' traits like perseverance weren't really a result of some innate strength and courage, so much as the fact that going home wasn't an option so you didn't really have a choice but to keep going. If getting up and leaving was a shameless and available option you can bet most of them would have gone home, and justifiably so, they were being literally slaughtered in an ultimately totally pointless battle. When we start calling people stuck in an battle they can't win running out to be slaughtered 'heroes' I personally think we start to enter a dangerous mentality. It's that kind of mythologising and romanticising of war and those that fight it that leads people to be so pressured by society's perception of what constitutes strength and heroism that they feel as though they have to fight. And that's what leads to people being slaughtered en masse for no good reason, which is exactly what we saw in WWI. I think we should lament that we live in a world that forced young men to make such huge sacrifices for such little gain rather than building up this myth of war as something which imparts strength and grants hero status. That's all just my personal opinion though, and on an issue like this there are always going to be people who see things in different ways depending on how they view violence, war, heroism and traditional masculinity in general.

pretty much this

As for the "being forced into the war and taking orders", i think this mentality only applies to conscripts, otherwise voluteering to become a soldier is a personal choice, i doubt anyone becomes a soldier without considering the possibility they are going to be in life or death situations and if you do, then that's hardly heroic in itself.

You cannot say a soldier is not responsible for their actions simply because their job is to take orders, if that soldier voluntarily chose to become a soldier and chose to walk down that path.

Furthermore, Gallipoli in particular was not "serving out country", and in fact there was a sizeable proportion of the population who were against the notion of participating in the war at all. I mean you could argue that people volunteered to fight based on the perception of serving their country but is this something heroic in itself, to be misguided and simply perceive u r serving the interests of ur nation when ur rly just participating in a war about european geopolitics that Australia got involved in solely cos it was politically allied with Britain?

As for the heroic qualities they drew upon of nobility and sacrifice, neither of those are distinctly Australian or "Anzac", and there is just as much evidence that rather than dying a magical hollywood movie death many soldiers were horribly slaughtered irrespective of what they tried to do. Mythologising these soldiers by saying they must have been heroic and courageous amd fought against the odds, may be true but i can guarantee you that in equal measure they were batshit scared and would have done anything to get out of there. That isn't anything to look down upon and instead of putting said people on a pedestal where they transcend basic human qualities into heroes we need to appreciate they too were human exactly like us and that war is not something that instantly makes you a hero if you participate but a horrible and disgusting waste of human life that cost these young people their lives for what was essentially a bullshit reason. Anzac day shouldn't be about the justification of war or how war makes our nation what it is or how heroic soldiers are, it should be about mourning and understanding the futility and horror of war and resolving not to get in such a situation again.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: Confessions

i mean one of the images in my head that resonates with me the most is when there was a truce between Australian and Turkish forces and they mingled in no man's land and conversed and bonded

And can you imagine what they were thinking?

"oh hey you're a great guy and if we weren't at war I might have visited your country one day, run into you and we could have had a lifelong friendship. But instead we are going to spend the entirety of the rest of the week attempting to shoot each other in the face all because some serbian terrorist a thousand miles away shot an austrian archduke"