Crikey Says

Apr 24, 2014

Crikey says: the Anzac mythology up close

Who's cashing in on aged care? A special report from Paddy Manning. Joe Hockey softening us up with budget hypocrisy. Liberals and lobbyists: finding the line. The legacy of Brian Harradine (not great if you're a woman). Guy Rundle on the Anzac mythology. How those photogenic royals are turning us off a republic. And Helen Razer's Game Of Thrones spoiler.


Leave a comment

9 thoughts on “Crikey says: the Anzac mythology up close

  1. David Hand

    That’s right Crikey,
    Piss all over the Australia of 100 years ago with a puerile revisionist smart-arsed “alternative” history of Gallipoli.

    But still take the day off.

  2. graybul

    Never thought would be agreeing with David . . . but on this occasion yes! A shallow, “filler” that adds zero to a reader’s insight, understanding!

  3. Jill Baird

    Come on you Anzac cheerleaders – it’s up to you to justify the attempted invasion of a foreign country with zero connection to Australia.

  4. AR

    The antiquity of an error is no justification for its continuation.

  5. jmendelssohn

    I will be commemorating Anzac day in the only way that squares with my conscience – dining out at a Turkish Restaurant.
    Let it not be forgotten that while our young men were blood sacrifices for British Jingoism, their deaths were a trigger for secular Turkish nationalism under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk (who oversaw the Turkish victory).

  6. max steinman

    David Hand could you actually explain what in this article is revisionist and so offensive to your sensibilities?

  7. David Hand

    Where do I start.
    Ok, popular history says that the allies invaded Turkey in order to establish secure supply lines to the Russian front. According to Crikey, the allies invaded Turkey because Churchill had been bribed with equity positions in oil companies that would then be able to make a killing through allied control of the Dardanelles.

    Next. “the decision to attack the Ottoman Empire has not a jot of moral character” So this whole ill-conceived disaster known as Gallipoli can be judged from the safety of the Crikey bunker a hundred years later as “immoral”

    It’s not so offensive though. After all this is the inner urban left of Fitzroy we are talking about. It’s absolute middle of the road stuff that passes for opinion on Crikey these days.

    What I found ironic was the end note where the Crikey warriors had just written off the whole event as immoral, had no difficulty taking the commemorative public holiday off.

  8. max steinman

    He’s making the point that any argument in favour of the war has no moral character, and he’s right and the soldiers and Gallipoli would have agreed with him. The justifications are immaterial, the war was immoral and it served certain interests, there was nothing in any part of the war on either side that could be judged as moral, it was a slaughter under imperial banners that served pre-existing interests and murdered an entire generation of men all over the world. How can you say any of it is not immoral?

  9. AR

    MaxS – double plus good. Your exposition applies to they who were citizens of the soi-disant Great Powers – they were chewed uop and spat out for an ideology already old and rotten.
    For this recently Federated country to have been involved was insane but that our troops were all volunteers shows the power of delusion when wrapped in tradition.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details