Anzac Gallipoli gatherings misguided, Keating says

[mantis]

Right, so you're saying the defining monent for Australians was an event when there were basically no Australians present.

Kinda losses it's relevence to an Australian then don't you think?


I don't have to choose I have dual citizenship.

Best of both worlds, tis grand.

Yes when our fore fathers, fought against the man, that was what defined us as Aussies, a fair go for all, not some poor unfortunate guys, who got sucked into be being killed for England.

You might have dual citizenship, but you are always sprouting about your Irish heritage over Australian, except when it suits you to switch sides.

I am half Scottish, but I don't carry on like you do, about that part of my heritage.

I'm an Aussie, first & foremost, my Scottish heritage means nothing to me.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Yes when our fore fathers, fought against the man, that was what defined us as Aussies, a fair go for all, not some poor unfortunate guys, who got sucked into be being killed for England.

You might have dual citizenship, but you are always sprouting about your Irish heritage over Australian, except when it suits you to switch sides.

I am half Scottish, but I don't carry on like you do, about that part of my heritage.

I'm an Aussie, first & foremost, my Scottish heritage means nothing to me.

Whose forefathers?

I'd think a hell of alot of Australians are descended from 'the man'.

And once again you ovelook that these people who you pin up as fighting against the man were the same ones who kicked others around on the mine fields.

As Geoffrey Blainey put it

"Nowadays it is common to see the noble Eureka flag and the rebellion of 1854 as the symbol of Australian independence, of freedom from foreign domination; but many saw the rebellion in 1854 as an uprising by outsiders who were exploiting the country's resources and refusing to pay their fair share of taxes. So we make history do its handsprings."[

Oh and lady, I wasn't born in Australia

So you see it's a little more than just your 'heritage' at play.

I'm proud of both nations, even if i'm culturally more Irish due to where i lived in my younger days.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You mean we like to think we are intelligent.

Maslow's Law(at the base level of the pyramid) shows we are not that different from any other creature on the planet in our primary needs and desires.

It's as we move up the chart that the human trait of greed creeps in and starts to dictate our actions.

Greed is the single factor for most wars and battles over time.

Yeah, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs bears out your argument. Our primary needs ARE the same as any other animal :- Food, shelter, safety. Greed creeps in and unbalances it all.

The thing is though, why do we strive to limit wars? Why do we seek to protect the lives of others if the world is simply dog-eat-dog?

A case can be made for fighting WW2 in that the German Reich and Japanese Empire were decidedly anti-humanitarian and so had to be stopped. But WW1 was different.

It was essentially a pissing contest between royal houses. The Russian Tsar, German Kaiser and British King were all related. All commanded armies. The House of Habsburg had fingers in many European pies as well.
The assassinated Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a Habsburg. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was ruled by a Habsburg.

Into this shitstorm Australia entered. Dogs ate other dogs, and the world had never seen such loss of life.

I still see no point to it.

A man is nothing if he can't override his base animal instinct.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Yeah, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs bears out your argument. Our primary needs ARE the same as any other animal :- Food, shelter, safety. Greed creeps in and unbalances it all.

The thing is though, why do we strive to limit wars? Why do we seek to protect the lives of others if the world is simply dog-eat-dog?

A case can be made for fighting WW2 in that the German Reich and Japanese Empire were decidedly anti-humanitarian and so had to be stopped. But WW1 was different.

It was essentially a pissing contest between royal houses. The Russian Tsar, German Kaiser and British King were all related. All commanded armies. The House of Habsburg had fingers in many European pies as well.
The assassinated Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a Habsburg. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was ruled by a Habsburg.

Into this shitstorm Australia entered. Dogs ate other dogs, and the world had never seen such loss of life.

I still see no point to it.

A man is nothing if he can't override his base animal instinct.

We strive to limit wars because if there was a total obliteration of everything who would we make money/profit off?

I remember an old economics teacher telling me that wars are one of the best ways to stimulate economies and provide growth.

And I guess he's right, wars stimulate alot of things like races in technology, increased manufacturing and once its all over reconstruction of nations.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

You might have dual citizenship, but you are always sprouting about your Irish heritage over Australian, except when it suits you to switch sides.

I am half Scottish, but I don't carry on like you do, about that part of my heritage.

I'm an Aussie, first & foremost, my Scottish heritage means nothing to me.

No offense, but what you do isn't the benchmark for what other people do, mantis.

Some people take more pride in their heritage, some people don't.

What exactly bothers you about somebody defining themselves as an Irish-Australian?

 

[Blues_Man]

Of course once you're in the war and the bullets are dinging overhead you're fighting alongside and for your mates. Before you're deployed to the field though, what made a bloke sign up? Adventure, excitement, maybe.

There would have been 'For King and Empire' posters and banners up too, wouldn't there? What were the kids told in school? Those who didn't go were mailed white feathers and often ostracised by the community, weren't they?

I definitely don't disrespect people who've fought in war, and I've met folk who've fought everywhere from Iraq and Vietnam to Nicaragua and Chechnya. I have issues with the bastards (of all nationalities) who send these poor soldiers out though, often only to come home in boxes. If at all.

I have issues with the bastards who send these young men out only for them to come home suffering nightmares and jumping at shadows for the rest of their lives.

I have issues with the bastards who dreamed up shit like Agent Orange, cluster munitions and depleted uranium, stuff which continues to be a nightmare to the soldiers who used it as well as the populations they were used against. Cancers, tumours, deformed children.

On ANZAC day just one word comes to my mind, one I'd like to put to the Turks and the Germans as well as the Poms, the Yanks, the Kiwis and Aussies.

Why?

Good post ..those are my sentiments exactly .

 

[Ruanaidh]

Good post ..those are my sentiments exactly .

Yes, very good post by GS who continues to contradict his moniker

 

[Dry Rot]

Did the threat from Turkey to Australia's interests justify the cost?

Had that many young men not died would Australia be a more prosperous nation today?

Doubt it - I'd say the cost of years on the Western Front in the trenches had a bigger impact.

 

[Clark Kent]

Med, what has he revised?

He 'belongs' to a mnority who wouldn't fight? How? How do you know he wouldn't fight? You can't simply place someone born thirty years after the event in that place. I dare say Keating would have fought at Kakoda, or in WWII - he's commented on why he thought WWII was a just cause and WW1 was not. You are confusing the issue by bringing that element into it.

Keating never has questioned the bravery of those men who volunteered as you say. He questions the reasons why they volunteered, and the mystique that now surrounds it. What annoys me, and others like PK is the nationalistic BS that has grown in the last couple of decades in particular. What sort of sick joke allows a bunch of kids to get plastered on that beach in the name of commemoration, with a rock concert as part of the 'entertainment'?

Typical Keating revisionism.

He conveniently forgets that those who fought volunteered. The nation didnt resent it, it was only a minority to which he belongs to that refused to fight whilst their fellow Australians bravely fought for a war which clearly threatened Australia's security.

 

[pazza]

I ask this - why isn't Kokoda honouredf more than Gallipoli...particularly in terms of defending ourselves as a nation? That's where Keating is going with what he's saying.

 

[TheBloods]

I ask this - why isn't Kokoda honouredf more than Gallipoli...particularly in terms of defending ourselves as a nation? That's where Keating is going with what he's saying.

Kokoda should be honoured more than it is, and that has gradually happened more over recent years. Gallipoli has a special place because of its place in the early history of Australia as a nation.

 

[TheBloods]

Yes, we need to be wary of ANZAC Day falling victim to jingoism. And there are many other conflicts that often get overshadowed by Gallipoli.

But Keating's comments give fuel to people who detest the very idea of ANZAC Day (I'm not including Keating in that category - but as usual, he's shown very little tact).

Even in times when people treat ANZAC Day as it should be treated (a day of sombre reflection) there are people complaining about excessive nationalism. You almost feel that they enjoy the years when people get carried away because it gives them a chance to get on their soapbox.

The fact of the matter is that the First World War was an extremely important part of Australia's history. Australian troops entered the First World War at Gallipoli and payed dearly. It was just a precursor of things to come, but it started there.

In 1915 most Australians still considered themselves part of the British Empire. But being part of that empire had never come at a real price before. 59-thousand Australians died during that war - and for Australians it started at Gallipoli.

I also think it's important that our day of rememberance doesn't take place on the anniversary of a victory, but a monumental loss. It helps us keep things in perspective.

Some people get carried away milking the legend of Gallipoli. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Exactly. That's basically what I was going to say!

 

[medusala]

Med, what has he revised?

history

He 'belongs' to a mnority who wouldn't fight?

sectarian divide.

Keating never has questioned the bravery of those men who volunteered as you say. He questions the reasons why they volunteered, and the mystique that now surrounds it.

here is what Keating said

He said while Australia wanted to prove itself to Great Britain, the nation also resented being dragged into a war which did not threaten it or its people.

a) troops were volunteers
b) Australia's security was clearly threatened

Keating is talking crxp.

 

[bit_pattern]

history

Keith Murdoch was the original ANZZAC revisionist

sectarian divide.

How many wars have you volunteered for, big guy?

b) Australia's security was clearly threatened

Yeah, Germany might have launched an invasion from New Guinea

 

[medusala]

Keith Murdoch was the original ANZZAC revisionist

he wasnt revising, he was there

How many wars have you volunteered for, big guy?

Which is an absurd point which is often raised by rampant misologists. There has been no security threat to Australia on anywhere that magnitude in my lifetime.

Yeah, Germany might have launched an invasion from New Guinea

Its pointless bothering. Read RoyLions numerous posts on this.

 

[Bumble Bee]

Its pointless bothering. Read RoyLions numerous posts on this.

Is this the bit where Roy backs up your baseless assumptions with quotes from "Nam", the Aussie Version ?

 

[TheBloods]

Is this the bit where Roy backs up your baseless assumptions with quotes from "Nam", the Aussie Version ?

Are you suggesting that Roylion doesn't know his history?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Are you suggesting that Roylion doesn't know his history?

I took it to mean that Roylion's sources might be a bit... biased, shall we say? A bit slanted towards a particular viewpoint?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I find that absolute objectivity is a fickle beast at the best of times.

 

[Roylion]

….most of the sources I have read state that Germany's naval build-up was no-where matching (or having the potential) that of the UK navy ...

Perhaps not, but it’s certainly clear that the British government at the time still feared rapid German naval expansion and chose to respond what they saw as an aggressive arms race perpetuated by Germany. Letters from George Goschen, the former First Lord of the Admiralty to Sir Edward Grey seem to make it clear that key members of the British government certainly perceived a serious threat emanating from Germany. Great Britain even actively sought the inclusion of arms control as a topic of discussion at the Hague Conference of 1907, despite the opposition of several great powers. Germany refused to attend any conference discussing the level of its armaments, thus spooking the British even further.

Historians such as James Joll for example have suggested that the British government and public became increasingly suspicious of German intentions following the publication of the German Navy law in 1898. The Reichsflotte theory, advocated by German Admiral Tirpitz in this law, required Germany to build a navy large enough to inflict serious injury upon its British counterpart. According to the theory, this in turn would so weaken Great Britain in its struggle against its natural enemies, France and Russia, that it could not defend itself from an attack by that Dual Alliance. According to Tirpitz’s theory realizing the danger posed by the German threat, Britain would eventually naturally gravitate towards an alliance with Germany, which also feared attack by France and Russia. In the Tirpitz Memorandum of 1897 Tirpitz said that "For Germany the most dangerous enemy at the present time is England. It is also the enemy against which we must urgently require a certain measure of naval force as a political power factor."

Britain responded to the German navy law by making an alliance with Japan, reaching informal arrangements with the US, both of which allowed ships to be relocated to the North Sea, reconciling with France in 1904 and an entente with Russia in 1907.

Great Britain increased the pace of the naval arms race through the 1906 completion of the Dreadnought. While this new weapon gave the British a lead over Germany, according to some, this development fuelled the naval challenge by making older battleships obsolete. According to George Modelski and William R Thompson, (who wrote 'Seapower in Global Politics,1494-1993' in 1988), the launching of the revolutionary new warship saw Great Britain’s numerical lead in battleships decline from twenty-seven to one.

Faced with the real prospect of overtaking its established rival in dreadnought-type battleships, Germany therefore accelerated its naval construction. Richard J. Stoll argued in 1992 in his book "Steaming in the Dark? Rules, Rivals, and the British Navy, 1860-1913," Germany could have possibly overtaken Great Britain’s lead in dreadnoughts. The resulting naval arms race reached a crescendo between 1908 and 1912, which were years punctuated by invasion scares and naval scares amongst the British public and government.

Certainly by the start of World War I, the German Imperial navy possessed 22 pre-Dreadnoughts, 19 dreadnought battleships, and 7 battlecruisers. Britain had 18 modern dreadnoughts, 10 battlecruisers and 29 pre-dreadnoughts. Other sources also include other smaller ships as part of the British navy which would make the tonnage of the British navy considerably larger (about 40% bigger)

and that the whole enterprise of WW1 was just a tragic, tragic mistake...

Many expected a general war long before it actually broke out. Even Bismarck back in the 1890’s predicted that a general European war would most likely have its’ origins in the Balkans.

No-one even agrees exactly why the war started in the first place.

It’s generally accepted is that a large number of factors contributed to the outbreak of war, including nationalism, imperialism, the alliance system, misperceptions of intent, the arms race of previous decades, unresolved military disputes, rigid timetabled military planning and economic rivalry. Which was the most important is a matter of debate.

I have also read that prior to allying with France, the UK proposed an alliance with Germany itself.

That's true. Historian H.W. Koch suggests that the only reason that a Britush-German agreement didn;'t come about was because of diplomatic bungling from both sides. Apparently British diplomat Joseph Chamberlain had offered a defensive alliance to his German counterpart Paul von Hatzfeldt to protect British colonial interests against other European powers such as France and Russia (Britain’s eventual allies in World War I). Germany proposed that Britain join the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy in a loose ‘Quadruple Alliance’. The British weren’t prepared to surrender control over Britain’s foreign policy to Italy and Austria, nor commit themselves to fighting for Italian or Austrian interests. Britain also felt little need for either Italian or Austrian assistance in any part of the world and to align itself with either power would have meant a much greater danger of being drawn into other regional or larger wars, without any benefit to Great Britain.

According to German diplomat Hermann Von Eckardstein, Britain ended the alliance talks having decided that ending all colonial disputes with France was more important than a defensive alliance with Germany and possibly Austria and Italy.

 

[Roylion]

I took it to mean that Roylion's sources might be a bit... biased, shall we say? A bit slanted towards a particular viewpoint?

And what viewpoint would that be?

 

[Schism]

If the turks don't mind then aussies can do what they want. Personally i wouldn't ever go there, and i'm ex-army. My brother is a soldier and wants to go one day. The vast majority of young aussies that go there wouldn't sign up to serve if you put a gun to their head, it's a bit hypocritical. It's one thing the US has over us in spades-the younger generations over there see it as an honour to serve, our youth mostly see it as a last resort for some money.

When i think of Gallipoli i get angry, not sad.

**** England, and **** Churchill.

 

[tribey]

You know how there is a lot of young people at ANZAC Cove on Anzac Day nowadays?

That's the issue for me.

The whole area is being eroded and overdeveloped by the Turkish govt. ("umm hi we just bulldozed the site and found more bones, whoopsy lol") to cater for all these wallaby-shirt clad contiki w***ers - the vast majority of whom aren't related to the troops in any way or have a clue as to what the entire operation was about - because it's become some sort of trendy thing to do.

Feck'em all off and preserve what's left of the area for those who actually had relatives spill blood and it will obviously mean something to them.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

And what viewpoint would that be?

Uh-oh, spaghetti-o. Mine was meant to be a comment on what Bumble Bee was saying and NMWBloods was replying to - Bumble Bee was questioning your historical sources, Bloods was wondering if Bumble Bee was sleighting your knowledge of history and I was simply putting to Bloods what I thought Bumble Bee actually meant.

My fault - shoulda just kept quiet. Turned into a bloody soap opera, didn't it?

 

[unstable punt]

He is right. About everything.

absolutely, its the biggest joke that we 'celebrate' Gallipolli every year, we were used and abused by the Brits, why do we hang our hat on this tragedy that is Gallipolli? Because we don't have much else in the way of history overseas. Makes me spew every time Anzac day comes around, especially the sentimental crap that goes with the football match

 

[Chops_a_must]

Why the hell should we define ourselves by military endeavors??? It boggles my mind that people think like that, it really does

Well... the British do. And have an affinity with "glorious" military defeats. You know, charge of the light brigade and so forth... So why shouldn't we? Kind of gets reflected in their sporting teams as well. Indeed nation and independence building when we use the same methods as the mother country for doing so.

As a descendant of Irish Republicans, I agree totally with Keating. Fighting against German and Ottoman imperialism wasn't the only thing our troops were fighting for - if you get the drift in my first sentence in this paragraph.


But it has me beaten as to why other military battles that were so much more important for us as a nation, are not promoted. Beersheba and the Palestinian campaign especially. Outright successes that we had a big part in, and definitely at the time, had a noble cause.

Ahead of Tobruk, Kokoda, all the rest, I would actually put the fall of Singapore as our most important action as a nation. It was the last time we took orders from Britain, and it was the first time we disobeyed British orders following the fall of Singapore, on a large scale. That and Kokoda were probably our two turning points as a nation.