Anzac Day:
Ken Lambert writes: Re. “Rundle: Anzac Day and why we need to question ‘myths’ of war” (yesterday, item 10). Some of Guy Rundle’s diatribe is correct — most of it is wrong. Many would agree that the popular media and most politicians are turning Anzac Day into a circus — an “event” to be ticked off with self-serving sentimentality.
However, Rundle has selectively chosen the WWI “rough and ready boys” in Palestine, their low opinion and tough treatment of the local Arabs and General Allenby’s disgust at their behaviours as somehow a general picture of the 324,000 volunteers who left Australia’s shores in WWI.
As one who has a close family history of WW1 and WWII veterans and researched many more, Rundle’s selective depiction is a gross distortion and smear on the vast majority who did not massacre any Arabs or commit any crimes — but who did endure terrible hardships and the high probability of mutilation and death. They left 60,000 of their number buried in foreign fields and returned to Australia to see another 60,000 die prematurely of physical wounds and thousands more suffer unrecognised mental illness for the rest of their lives. They were known in Veterans Affairs as the “self-sufficient” generation — only made claims when they really had no alternative. A generation to be honoured and admired — worthy of myth making.
Of course what Guy fails to mention is the big bit about WW2 — the volunteers and conscripts who served their country against the army of the Hitler and Mussolini regimes and against the fanatical Japanese Imperial Army and its murderous rampage through south-east Asia. The bit about beheaded and machine-gunned nurses, survival as a prisoner of the Japanese — dare I say true mateship that showed the best of the Australian spirit. Of my uncle, who was awarded a MC in New Guinea for saving his platoon by holding on to a position against fanatical Japanese attack, the only crime on his record was telling an officer to “f-ck off’ when ordered to pick up cigarette butts during basic training.
Whether you think the wars Australia has fought were justified or not, Anzac Day observance is all about a free democratic people honouring its largely volunteer citizen military raised and deployed by its democratically elected politicians. It is the people honouring those of its number who have risked life and limb for the rest.
Business leaders:
Kerry Henry writes: Re. “Letter to Business Council chief Jennifer Westacott: why we’re disappointed” (Tuesday, item 3). How brilliant was this piece by Bernard Keane! One of the best I’ve read in recent times.
I was only saying recently to a small business gathering that it’s time a whole bunch of overpaid whingeing business and industry association heads were put out to pasture (or their misery) and we allow a new batch of progressive up and coming tier two executives take Australia and its citizens forward (and happily on far less pay).
It’s incredibly sad that for such a lucky country, we lack vision and leadership among most of the current bunch of politicians and business/industry association “heads” (sorry, using “leaders” would be entirely misleading).
Europe’s economy:
Niall Clugston writes: Re. Tuesday’s Editorial. Regarding Tuesday’s editorial: the spectre of the 1930s is stalking Europe, with its financial crisis metastasising into a political one.
Crikey‘s conclusion: Australian interest rates will probably fall. I though Crikey was trying to be different.
(And actually, if I was the RBA, I’d be conserving ammunition.)
@Niall (yeah, again 🙂
I’m in two minds about the ammo analogy. The first one says, its like using a bullet to kill one of two rabbits. False economy to save, because you’re going to get over-run. (the analogy of keeping inflation or recession controlled rather than saving up changes til we get recession or inflation out of control)
The second one agrees with keeping some space between the current rate and zero. Rather like the USA did not do.
While Guy Rundle did make some telling comments in his article about Anzac, the following paragraph intrigued me.
“Mateship appears to have been forged as much in an Australian disdain for British objection to our troops’ propensity to commit war crimes against Arab populations. Much of what we construct as “stuffy” British reaction to our rough-and-ready boys was really General Allenby’s disgust at an army that looked on the mass killing of Arabs with such insouciance — a habit that was unquestionably a transfer of white attitudes to Aborigines, to a new indigenous population.”
I take it that Rundle is referring to the ‘mateship’ supposedly forged at Anzac and that this ‘mateship’ was a reaction to the British “objection” to our “mass killings of Arabs”. If he is, I think a little historical research would be in order. The Gallipoli campagn began in 1915 with the withdrawal from the site taking place in December of that year. The campaign led by General Allenby, under whom the Australian Light Horse fought, began in 1916. How could there have been any “British objection to our rough- and -ready boys” at Gallipoli when there had been no campaign invoving Arabs up to this point?
While on the historical theme, where does Rundle get his information about the “mass killings of Arabs”? And how does he arrive at the point that these supposed “mass killings” are “unquestionably a transfer of white attitudes to Aborigines” Given that the Arabs are not noticably darker in skin than the Turks, wouldn’t such practices – the supposed product of our racism – have been carried out on Turkish prisoners?
I guess I’m probably very ignorant on these matters, but it would be nice if someone could enlighten me on the historical facts of the above.
Graham
Mystified
@Kerry Henry – hear hear! you’re spot on.
By the way, Australia’s first battle in WW1 was the capture of German New Guinea.