What is the future of war remembrance in Australia?

[Bunk Moreland]

I found myself thinking about this today, on Remembrance Day (which has a far lower profile than ANZAC Day, due to the public holiday).

Where do we think it goes in the next 20, 30, 50 years?

While other wars have been fought, the focus of these days always was / is the two world wars, and understandably so. These are conflicts where countless Australians were involved.

I would say this was extremely relevant in our society up to perhaps the 1990s - the actual veterans themselves were among us which meant it was permanently part of our psyche.

Now, less so. Remembrance Day gets less and less attention, while ANZAC Day has moved largely from a day of solemn remembrance to one of jingoistic attempted patriotism and football.

As we approach the 100th anniversary of WW2, how will our society mark these things? We’ll have a situation where the World Wars are genuinely ancient history and so simply a lot less relevant. We no longer see wars and conflicts where your average joe in the community signs up to get involved - technology means there is much less manpower required at war.

Interested in people’s thoughts…

 

[schneebly111]

War “rememberance” isn’t much of a thing.

For instance some employers are “strongly encouraging” all employees in the office attend a minute’s silence ceremony. However I can guarantee you maybe 1% could actually explain why WW1 started or why Australian soldiers were invading Gallipoli. War “rememberance” has becoming a religion and a marketing event. You make chants, the ode and the bugle, observe a minute’s silence and post it on social media to win social credit brownie points.

The last surviving Australian who fought at Gallipoli was Alec Campbell. He was totally against “remembering” Gallipoli, he said it was a “fiasco, a failure and should be forgotten about”. And he was totally right. Australia’s “founding myth” was being part of a British Empire invading Turkey without provocation, being machine gunned to death by the thousands, failing to achieve any objectives and eventually retreating. There’s nothing to celebrate in that.

As the events of the majority of our wars fade deeper into the past it’s easier for current politicians to twist them into myths so they can keep up support for warmongering policies, or policies against the average person’s interests, or con young people into enlisting.

On a personal note I do absolutely nothing to “remember” on Nov 11 or April 25. Those events have zero relevance to my life and my future. I was once shamed by a colleague for not attending an Anzac service to “honour the diggers that sacrificed their lives for our freedom”. I responded “How did Australians attacking Turkey which had never threatened Australia in order to open up the Bosphorus Strait and secure a port in Crimea affect my freedom?” She was so gobsmacked she just walked away.

 

[Episode IV]

The British Empire did not "invade Turkey without provocation". It invaded the Ottoman Empire, of which Turkey was a part (soldiers serving in the Ottoman armies defending Gallipoli came from all over the Empire, not just Turkey), after that empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers - and promptly attacked Russian shipping and ports in order to secure its own economic and territorial position in the region.
I'd also mention here that along with British Commonwealth soldiers, there were also quite a few French troops involved.

Entering the war on the side of Britain's enemies and conducting surprise attacks on Britain's allies without declaring war is a fairly provocative thing to do, Schneebly. Your use of the word "unprovoked" here is not altogether accurate, now, is it.

I don't really know how to respond to your description of the Dardanelles campaign as a "founding myth", either. Are you trying to claim it didn't happen?

The Dardanelles campaign wasn't "ill-conceived" as much as it was poorly executed and under resourced. The strategy itself was quite viable and had better decisions been made, particularly in the opening days, it may well have succeeded. It's not as if access to the Black Sea isn't as critically important now as it ever was, is it, and dealing a final blow to an ailing Ottoman Empire in 1915 wasn't the worst military idea anyone has ever had.

The rest of that assessment is largely correct, though, it was a colossal balls-up on a tactical level... as much of World War 1 was.
But that isn't what Remembrance day is about, is it?

Which is one thing I do agree with you on - there are quite a few people who don't really know much about the Dardanelles campaign at all... or what Remembrance day is about.
I'd imagine people walk away from you quite often, schneebly111. They aren't necessarily doing it because your telling insight and acumen puts them to shame.

 

[Episode IV]

I found myself thinking about this today, on Remembrance Day (which has a far lower profile than ANZAC Day, due to the public holiday).

Where do we think it goes in the next 20, 30, 50 years?
...
Interested in people’s thoughts…

But in reply to the thread itself... increasing disinterest in future decades is likely.

You're right, these kinds of things do fade in importance over time (to an extent), but a knowledge of your own countries' history has been an important part of its own sense of identity for centuries.

We live in an Australia in which at least 30% of the population were not even born here. One of the effects of multiculturalism is that a nation ends up with a decreased shared sense of history and self-identity, and the stories that go into the creation and sustenance of that self-identity decrease in importance as well.

We are no longer a homogeneous population, and that one thing alone is going to result in our history and cultural traditions being of less and less interest to younger generations.

 

[nut]

What parts should we remember? Just the Participation?
Or why people had to die?

Surely the biggest disrespect to the people who fought and died is not knowing what they fought and died for?

The same people who sent them to war are the same people who want as to ignore that… so they can send them again… and again… and again.

 

[schneebly111]

We live in an Australia in which at least 30% of the population were not even born here.

Your point being?

One of the effects of multiculturalism is that a nation ends up with a decreased shared sense of history and self-identity, and the stories that go into the creation and sustenance of that self-identity decrease in importance as well. We are no longer a homogeneous population, and that one thing alone is going to result in our history and cultural traditions being of less and less interest to younger generations.

A self identity based on a myth, that the diggers fought for “our freedom” at Gallipoli. They didn’t. In fact one of the prime reasons for invading Gallipoli and involvement of World War One was upholding the white Australia policy. Look at what Billy Hughes and a lot of politicians and generals said at the time.

You are right that with the ending of White Australia and the change in this nation to a multicultural one it is inevitable that the idolisation of war history fought for a white Australia and a British empire will decline. I see this as a good thing.

Australia should have a shared identity in its multicultural status and a forward thinking population not a false memory of dying for a faded empire.

 

[Episode IV]

Your point being?

... did you need that post explained for you, Schneebly?

 

[schneebly111]

... did you need that post explained for you, Schneebly?

Should migrants be assessed on their desire to “honour the Anzacs”?

In my opinion this militarism is rubbish and there’s far greater things in our nation’s history to honour like being the nation with some of the first women’s suffrage and labour laws, the nation that developed the HPV vaccine, penicillin and the pacemaker, and our highly successful multicultural society over worshipping dying 100 years ago for the British Empire to preserve a white Australia that no longer exists.

 

[Festerz]

In my opinion this militarism is rubbish

Remembrance Day (originally known as Armistice Day) and Anzac Day are not there to celebrate militarism - in fact the exact opposite. They are there for all of us as a nation - regardless of our family backgrounds - to remind us and cause us to reflect on the huge personal and generational cost of militarism.

One was established to remember the end of 'The Great War' for those nations involved and later to remember the loss of lives from all wars. The other commemorating the tragic and needless loss of life from a huge military failure for Australia and New Zealand - the first conflict Australia engaged in as a nation as opposed to individual colonies of the UK - at the behest of a foreign power. Both still serve a fundamental purpose in modern Australia in recounting the huge cost of military conflict as our part of the world enters yet another era of raised military tensions.

there’s far greater things in our nation’s history to honour like being the nation with some of the first women’s suffrage and labour laws, the nation that developed the HPV vaccine, penicillin and the pacemaker, and our highly successful multicultural society

We can and should do both of course. They are all a part of our shared history as a nation.

 

[QuietB]

ANZAC day is about colonial Australia trying to find an identity. Howard revived it for this reason - Australia must have an identity and that identity must be about celebrating white colonialism.

This theme repeats throughout Australia's colonial history - the myth of the free settler, bushrangers, ANZAC and the birth of a nation

Most of it is about denying Australia's actual history - black armband and all that, now the success of immigration and multiculturalism.

Howard's idea to revive the ANZAC's was a great idea until they ran out of ANZAC's. Now we are celebrating Vietnam war vets on ANZAC Day - imagine proposing that idea in 1973

It will Peter out.

The only ones who have ever fully supported it because it reflected their ideal view of white colonial Australia is the conservatives - and they are currently petering (flaming) out as well!

 

[schneebly111]

Howard's idea to revive the ANZAC's was a great idea until they ran out of ANZAC's. Now we are celebrating Vietnam war vets on ANZAC Day - imagine proposing that idea in 1973

Australia as a whole actually treated returning Vietnam soldiers well. The whole “vets got spat on by protesters” was a myth.

The one group that didn’t welcome returned Vietnam soldiers was the RSL, which was because they were a club for old farts and didn’t want young people around them.

The RSL, in its early years, was also one of the biggest proponents of the white Australia policy. They were loud and proud about saying the diggers at Gallipoli fought for a white Australia.

 

[The Punter]

ANZAC day is about colonial Australia trying to find an identity. Howard revived it for this reason - Australia must have an identity and that identity must be about celebrating white colonialism.

This theme repeats throughout Australia's colonial history - the myth of the free settler, bushrangers, ANZAC and the birth of a nation

Most of it is about denying Australia's actual history - black armband and all that, now the success of immigration and multiculturalism.

Howard's idea to revive the ANZAC's was a great idea until they ran out of ANZAC's. Now we are celebrating Vietnam war vets on ANZAC Day - imagine proposing that idea in 1973

It will Peter out.

The only ones who have ever fully supported it because it reflected their ideal view of white colonial Australia is the conservatives - and they are currently petering (flaming) out as well!

Bushrangers? If that were true, there would be something at Glenrowan that wasn't merely embarrassing.

 

[Festerz]

Australia as a whole actually treated returning Vietnam soldiers well.

That is simply not true.

First of all it's important to remember that almost all the Australians who fought in the Vietnam War were conscripted - forced by legislation to go and risk their lives to fight in a foreign conflict most of them never supported and/or didn't understand. The first and ONLY time that has been done in Australia's history.

And a conflict that by 1969 the vast majority of Australians were opposed to.

Try and imagine what that does to the long term well being and self awareness of a young person barely into adulthood.

Secondly, the treatment of returned soldiers from Vietnam from was nothing like those of previous conflicts - both in terms of public support and the government.

My brother in law was a 'Nasho' who was sent to Vietnam when he was 18. He was shot and returned home for treatment. Still suffering the physical and mental scars of what he went through during those times he is only now able to talk about them to the rest of the family. Of seeing his squad leader shot through the head by a sniper while he was standing next to him Of he and other injured soldiers being transported back to Adelaide from Brisbane in stretchers place in the back rows of commercial TAA flights where rows of seats had been removed. He tells the story of him and his mates lying there while passengers lined up waiting to go to the toilet peered over their bandaged and broken bodies.

The Australian combatants from Anzacs onwards share one common theme. These were mostly very young men and women who served their country and knew little or nothing of the politics that took them to those foreign lands. The way in which their innocent courage and sacrifice (including those from Indigenous backgrounds) is conflated with self righteous narratives of the partisan politics of the day is a reflection of the ignorance of those making the sweeping statements.

If anything it highlights why the traditions of Anzac Day and Remembrance Day need to be kept and strengthened - so that the truth of our history with all its faults can be kep alive instead of being swept aside by ignorance and politics.

 

[schneebly111]

That is simply not true.

First of all it's important to remember that almost all the Australians who fought in the Vietnam War were conscripted - forced by legislation to go and risk their lives to fight in a foreign conflict most of them never supported and/or didn't understand. The first and ONLY time that has been done in Australia's history.

Incorrect. Only 30-40% of soldiers sent to. Vietnam were conscripts. They had the choice of being conscientious objectors but didn’t, or serving in non combat units or the Navy or RAAF or other ways to get out. I’d say most of the conscripts sent to Vietnam were Ok with being there.

2016: Vietnam War hard on conscripts ‘who drew the card’ - University of Wollongong – UOW

www.uow.edu.au

Secondly, the treatment of returned soldiers from Vietnam from was nothing like those of previous conflicts - both in terms of public support and the government.

Yeah largely exaggerated. Historians have explored these myths and found them largely lacking evidence:

The enduring myth of the abusive Vietnam war protesters | Tom Greenwell

Bestselling historian Paul Ham stands by allegations that Vietnam-era protesters confronted returning veterans at airports and in the steets, but the evidence doesn’t add up

insidestory.org.au

Stephens, David: Mark Dapin: politely pushing back against Australia’s Vietnam mythology | HONEST HISTORY

Australia's Vietnam: What really happened when the soldiers returned

Mark Dapin examines six popular myth surrounding the soldiers who returned to Australia from Vietnam.

www.smh.com.au

Australia's Vietnam: Myth vs History | Australia Explained

One of the most interesting things for a historian like me is finding out how big the difference often is between the past and the stories we tell about it. ...

www.australia-explained.com.au

 

[Festerz]

I’d say most of the conscripts sent to Vietnam were Ok with being there.

Tragically, 523 Australians died during our nation’s involvement in the war, from 1962 to 1973. We honour and remember them for the ultimate sacrifice they made for our nation. We also acknowledge the experiences of those 3,000 Australian Defence Force members who were wounded, otherwise injured or suffered from illness during the Vietnam War.

We acknowledge the significant legacy of our Vietnam veterans in raising awareness about mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their experiences have helped shape society’s understanding of these complex issues which today allows this Royal Commission to explore the ongoing stories of defence and veteran suicide and suicidality, as well as the contributing factors – particularly those linked to military service.

Since the war, we know many Vietnam veterans have sadly died by suicide; however, we cannot be sure of the true extent of this tragedy. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, at least 1,600 Australian servicemen and women died by suicide between 1997 and 2020. But this data does not include veterans who served before 1985, including our Vietnam veterans.

We acknowledge that the polarising nature of the Vietnam conflict – and the hostile reception our troops faced upon their return home to Australia – negatively impacted the mental health and wellbeing of many Vietnam veterans. Some have told us they’ve felt abandoned by the Government and a sense of shame because their service has never been appropriately recognised.

https://defenceveteransuicide.royalcommission.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/statement-50th-anniversary-end-australian-involvement-vietnam-war

 

[rank and file]

In 10yrs we will be at the Least We Forgot stage.

 

[QuietB]

Bushrangers? If that were true, there would be something at Glenrowan that wasn't merely embarrassing.

Do you mean this - probably the only statue in Australia that has never been vandalised

 

[The Punter]

Do you mean this - probably the only statue in Australia that has never been vandalised

View attachment 2489513

Probably because so few people know it is there. I last visited in 2020.

Glenrowan is a joke, and unfortunately so for a place where such an important event in our history took place.

 

[QuietB]

Probably because so few people know it is there. I last visited in 2020.

Glenrowan is a joke, and unfortunately so for a place where such an important event in our history took place.

What was the important event? Cops getting murdered? A bushranger going on a rampage? The home made armour?

Will Dezi Freeman get a statue in Porepunkah?

 

[Northalives]

Soldiers died in wars as did civilians. We must never forget that war is evil and to just brush those horrors to one side is to doom us to make the same catastrophic mistakes again and again and again and ...........

Armistice Day and Anzac Day are not about celebrating or glorifying war, they are about remembering the atrocities that took place.

There are those who try very hard to turn those days into the glorification of war and it is those people that some on here should be going hard at, not the days set aside for remembering the atrocities and warning us not to repeat them again.

It is the politicians and the megalomaniacs, the capitalist pig dogs, the supremacists we need to heavily condemn and fight against and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked as to whether the days of remembrance are "good" or "bad"; that is just to play into the hands of those who want to divide and sow enmity to suit their own agendas.

The United Nations came into being so as to finally stop Monarchies, coalitions and those countries that could just attack other countries for land and/or wealth and it was working OK, not perfect but OK. Until that is, the three nations most instrumental in setting up the UN, namely Australia, Britain and the US, completely ignored the UN and invaded Iraq.

We need to remember the crimes and barbarism of the past and Armistice Day and Anzac day should serve as days of reflection, not of glorification.

 

[nut]

Soldiers died in wars as did civilians. We must never forget that war is evil and to just brush those horrors to one side is to doom us to make the same catastrophic mistakes again and again and again and ...........

Armistice Day and Anzac Day are not about celebrating or glorifying war, they are about remembering the atrocities that took place.

There are those who try very hard to turn those days into the glorification of war and it is those people that some on here should be going hard at, not the days set aside for remembering the atrocities and warning us not to repeat them again.

It is the politicians and the megalomaniacs, the capitalist pig dogs, the supremacists we need to heavily condemn and fight against and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked as to whether the days of remembrance are "good" or "bad"; that is just to play into the hands of those who want to divide and sow enmity to suit their own agendas.

The United Nations came into being so as to finally stop Monarchies, coalitions and those countries that could just attack other countries for land and/or wealth and it was working OK, not perfect but OK. Until that is, the three nations most instrumental in setting up the UN, namely Australia, Britain and the US, completely ignored the UN and invaded Iraq.

We need to remember the crimes and barbarism of the past and Armistice Day and Anzac day should serve as days of reflection, not of glorification.

Our fallen heroes would be devastated to know what’s happening in Gaza.

We are allowing what they fought for to happen again.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think the Australian War Memorial establishing a wing commemorating the frontier wars, and telling the arms manufacturers to eff off out of the place, would be two huge steps towards establishing a culture of war remembrance in Australia that is based on honesty.

But I see the current prospects of either of those significant things happening as pretty bleak.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Soldiers died in wars as did civilians. We must never forget that war is evil and to just brush those horrors to one side is to doom us to make the same catastrophic mistakes again and again and again and ...........

Armistice Day and Anzac Day are not about celebrating or glorifying war, they are about remembering the atrocities that took place.

There are those who try very hard to turn those days into the glorification of war and it is those people that some on here should be going hard at, not the days set aside for remembering the atrocities and warning us not to repeat them again.

It is the politicians and the megalomaniacs, the capitalist pig dogs, the supremacists we need to heavily condemn and fight against and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked as to whether the days of remembrance are "good" or "bad"; that is just to play into the hands of those who want to divide and sow enmity to suit their own agendas.

The United Nations came into being so as to finally stop Monarchies, coalitions and those countries that could just attack other countries for land and/or wealth and it was working OK, not perfect but OK. Until that is, the three nations most instrumental in setting up the UN, namely Australia, Britain and the US, completely ignored the UN and invaded Iraq.

We need to remember the crimes and barbarism of the past and Armistice Day and Anzac day should serve as days of reflection, not of glorification.

I agree but the war barrackers have well and truly sunk their claws into Anzac Day and won’t be letting go, so I prefer to just let it alone these days. I take no part.

You can say that the dawn services themselves are solemn, dignified affairs and that is true, but the bellicose right have sullied the whole notion of what Anzac Day should be.

 

[The Punter]

What was the important event? Cops getting murdered? A bushranger going on a rampage? The home made armour?

Will Dezi Freeman get a statue in Porepunkah?

No police died at Glenrowan. They were murdered at Stringybark Creek. There is a memorial there, but it is not an easy place to get to.

And despite your unreasonable comparison, I was talking about proper and appropriate designation and memorialisation of what took place at Glenrowan. Kelly is a significant figure in Australian history (unlike Freeman, whether you lump them in to the same category or not) and Glenrowan should have more than a low-rent electronic show and a 20 foot wooden statue of Ned himself.

 

[Roylion]

Kelly is a significant figure in Australian history

Kelly's significance to Australian history is rather overblown in my view.

and Glenrowan should have more than a low-rent electronic show and a 20 foot wooden statue of Ned himself.

I'm not sure what else needs to be commemorated. There was an attempted foiled hijacking of a train and a siege where three out of the four Kelly gang were killed by the police.