What do you think?
Rate this book
What's Wrong with ANZAC?: The Militarisation of Australian History
Brave and controversial, this account argues that Australians’ collective obsession with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) has distorted their perception of national history. Delving into the history of ANZAC and the mythologies surrounding it, this detailed record explores topics such as the formation of Australia’s national holidayANZAC Dayand the way in which the spirit of ANZAC is taught in the nation's classrooms. Ultimately, this informative narrative claims that ANZAC has become a conservative political force in Australia and questions whether ANZAC’S renowned foreign battles were worth all of the bloodshed. Daring, intelligent, and thought-provoking, this is a must-read for those interested in Australian or military history.
ebook
First published January 1, 2010
12 people are currently reading
206 people want to read
About the author
Marilyn Lake
17 books4 followersMarilyn Lake, AO, is Professorial Fellow in History at the University of Melbourne.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
November 12, 2018
This was one of the best and most engaging history books I’ve read in a long while. It examines (and deconstructs) the Anzac legend in Australian history and how it is viewed, used, misunderstood or downright fabricated in the present day. A powerful and deeply convincing antidote to the militarism and egregious nationalism expressed in Australia every April 25th (and the rest of the year around it).
April 26, 2016
As Australian historians, we have written this book because we are deeply concerned about many aspects of the Anzac resurgence. We are concerned about the extraordinary government intervention in promoting Anzac Day, most of which has occurred without people knowing its true extent. We are also concerned about the misrepresentation and forgetting of our broader history. History runs counter to myth-making.
As a German reader living in snake country, Anzac day is a weird thing - could you imagine hundreds of Germans traveling to Poland every year to commemorate the German invasion? Yet Australians do that, ever since the late 90s, when the conservative Howard government (when isn't an Australian government conservative?) decided to move away from the icky Australia Day (a.k.a Invasion Day) and focus more on war commemoration, with all the US-American kitsch it entails (
Thanks to this I've learned a lot about how Anzac day started, and how the young Australia fought strongly about war issues (something which doesn't happen at all nowadays, despite a large involvement in overseas wars), and how organizations such as the RSL fought for pro-patriotism - for the longest time I thought RSLs are a chain of pubs focusing on slot machines (=pokies), it took quite a while until I learned that these are gathering places for veterans (what a strange idea! building a bunch of large gambling pubs for possibly traumatized ex-soldiers) from a huge organization that used to lobby for forced conscription and to have communism outlawed.
Lots of interesting side things (the near-split of Western Australia over war discussions, the facts that Australia had practically no say in WW1, that Gallipolli was an invasion and not some kind of defense of Australia [from what?]), but sometimes too repetitive, not always focused on the message (that's what happens when you have several authors). Interestingly, this book is the first book on history that I've read that extensively cites blogs and Internet comments as sources for the vox populi. These comments help the book to make a good distinction between the terrible and lazy Australian political rhetoric and the feelings of the actual population - there's a large rift in between.
As our political leaders increasingly mimic the public performances of American politicians, smiling and waving to the cameras as they pass through the church gates on Sunday morning, one wonders if the Anzac revolution has occurred not because we are a post-Christian society, but because we live in a time of religious revival. Before Anzac, we bow down, we close ranks and we remain silent.
February 13, 2022
This book provides historical context on how and why Anzac Day is today's most important national day in Australia.
Schooled in the ideas of late Edwardian militarism and Social Darwinism, Australian foreign policy shifted from being non-interventionist to become a reliable supporter to Britain's (and later America's) military campaigns.
It's important to take into consideration that Australia was not an independent nation before or after 1914 and its foreign policy was mainly controlled by the Australian Imperial Forces and the Head of the Estate (British Monarchs).
Starting in 1885, Australian colonies first assisted Britain at the Sudan war and to conquer the two Boer Republics in South Africa. The prominent lawyer-politician and first federal prime minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, led the debate about the involvement in South Africa by arguing in the parliament that Australia could rely on the wisdom and intelligence of the British authorities because they were 'of the same blood' and 'belong to the same race'.
In 1915, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) invaded Gallipoli with the objective of opening way to Allies navies towards the Black Sea and to conquer Constantinople. What had been planned as a bold strike to knock the Ottomans out of the war quickly became a stalemate, and the campaign dragged on for eight months. At the end of 1915, the Allied forces were evacuated after both sides had suffered heavy casualties and endured great hardships. The Allied deaths totalled over 56,000, including 8,709 from Australia and 2,721 from New Zealand.
After the experience of the Western Front, its death, destruction and aftermath, the militarist writers of the Edwardian era were discredited and quickly forgotten. Glorification of war, fashionable before 1914, was eschewed in most combatant countries. It was left to Mussolini, Hitler and the Japanese military to keep the warship of war alive.
In Australia however, tragedy was turned into glory. The Anzac day was established in 1916 to not only pay tribute to those who served at war, but to commemorate the birth of the nation.
Federation had inaugurated the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, but this event lacked enough symbolism to generate profound national sentiments in the population. Therefore, the political establishment saw in Anzac an opportunity to establish the ideas that war provided a test of nationhood and that nations are made in war. Australian values of freedom, manhood and mateship had been demonstrated to the world, hence the nation was born.
Anzac Day was initially well received by the general population. Anzac experienced challanges due to loss of public interest and opposition from pacifists organisations during the '50s, '60s and '70s.
From the 80's, despite genuine efforts been made to make Australia Day the most important national day, the landing of Governor Phillip and the First Fleet to Sydney Cove in 1788 hardly meant anything to Australians. Furthermore, it represents the start of the British invasion and consequential massacres of Aboriginal Australians. Thus, the nationalist governments at the time saw a new opportunity to re-establish Anzac Day as the new national day.
Since then, Anzac Day has been managed by the federal government and received hefty budgets to refurbish monuments, dawn ceremony broadcasting and curriculum material in primary and secondary schools.
Australians are fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of war's true significance. Our distance from the battlefields helps us understand Australia's glorification and willingness to go to war in the present.
Schooled in the ideas of late Edwardian militarism and Social Darwinism, Australian foreign policy shifted from being non-interventionist to become a reliable supporter to Britain's (and later America's) military campaigns.
It's important to take into consideration that Australia was not an independent nation before or after 1914 and its foreign policy was mainly controlled by the Australian Imperial Forces and the Head of the Estate (British Monarchs).
Starting in 1885, Australian colonies first assisted Britain at the Sudan war and to conquer the two Boer Republics in South Africa. The prominent lawyer-politician and first federal prime minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, led the debate about the involvement in South Africa by arguing in the parliament that Australia could rely on the wisdom and intelligence of the British authorities because they were 'of the same blood' and 'belong to the same race'.
In 1915, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) invaded Gallipoli with the objective of opening way to Allies navies towards the Black Sea and to conquer Constantinople. What had been planned as a bold strike to knock the Ottomans out of the war quickly became a stalemate, and the campaign dragged on for eight months. At the end of 1915, the Allied forces were evacuated after both sides had suffered heavy casualties and endured great hardships. The Allied deaths totalled over 56,000, including 8,709 from Australia and 2,721 from New Zealand.
After the experience of the Western Front, its death, destruction and aftermath, the militarist writers of the Edwardian era were discredited and quickly forgotten. Glorification of war, fashionable before 1914, was eschewed in most combatant countries. It was left to Mussolini, Hitler and the Japanese military to keep the warship of war alive.
In Australia however, tragedy was turned into glory. The Anzac day was established in 1916 to not only pay tribute to those who served at war, but to commemorate the birth of the nation.
Federation had inaugurated the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, but this event lacked enough symbolism to generate profound national sentiments in the population. Therefore, the political establishment saw in Anzac an opportunity to establish the ideas that war provided a test of nationhood and that nations are made in war. Australian values of freedom, manhood and mateship had been demonstrated to the world, hence the nation was born.
Anzac Day was initially well received by the general population. Anzac experienced challanges due to loss of public interest and opposition from pacifists organisations during the '50s, '60s and '70s.
From the 80's, despite genuine efforts been made to make Australia Day the most important national day, the landing of Governor Phillip and the First Fleet to Sydney Cove in 1788 hardly meant anything to Australians. Furthermore, it represents the start of the British invasion and consequential massacres of Aboriginal Australians. Thus, the nationalist governments at the time saw a new opportunity to re-establish Anzac Day as the new national day.
Since then, Anzac Day has been managed by the federal government and received hefty budgets to refurbish monuments, dawn ceremony broadcasting and curriculum material in primary and secondary schools.
Australians are fortunate enough to live in blissful ignorance of war's true significance. Our distance from the battlefields helps us understand Australia's glorification and willingness to go to war in the present.
September 1, 2019
What Australians are like, and how they should or might see themselves is inextricably tied up with Anzac Day on 25 April, whether or not you agree with what it represents (myth or reality). As Marilyn Lake and others point out in this excellent text, this was not always the case; personally, I can attest to growing up at a time when it was thought to be fading away. Even my father, a returned serviceman, seemed not all that attached, and at that time he had also detached himself from the RSL – the notional representatives of people like him.
These days, Anzac Day has become perhaps the most significant day in the Australian calendar, in which the idea that related events in 1915 in Asia Minor defined the character of the nation and its inhabitants, in which Australian citizens travel to Gallipoli in Turkey each year to commemorate soldiers who fought there, and elsewhere, before and afterwards, as it turns out.
The authors in this book, all distinguished historians, are troubled by what they see as the militarisation of Australian history, at the expense of other events of social, cultural and political achievement.
The book fits within the history of emotions, as well as in Australian social and political history because, as the authors point out, discussion about ANZAC or military service is somewhat fraught and personal and the myth, peddled by government departments and in schools these days, has supplanted what actually happened, not only in 1915 and other military adventures, but also in the development of the nation. A strong belief exists that ideas like freedom, democracy and mateship were on display and defended in this far-away locale.
Joy Damousi, one of the contributors comments on the public display of emotions associated with this event by saying "expression of strong emotion is a way to avoid discussion and circumvent debate" and this is important in undewrstanding both the issue and what is put forward in this slim text, which discusses ideas about Australia, what Australians actually appear to have been fighting for in 1915 and surrounding years (Empire, White Australia etc.) and the history of reframing this as a nation-building event par excellence.
I'm not a fan of military history, but was familiar with the broad brush of the formative events and the mixed reactions to what followed. In that respect, this text provided content and structure to what I'd learned previously, as well as an underlying theme of online responses to statements made by Lake about the Myth of Anzac.
If you're seriously interested in Australian history and culture, you can't not read this book, an easy and informative read, backed up by references and research.
These days, Anzac Day has become perhaps the most significant day in the Australian calendar, in which the idea that related events in 1915 in Asia Minor defined the character of the nation and its inhabitants, in which Australian citizens travel to Gallipoli in Turkey each year to commemorate soldiers who fought there, and elsewhere, before and afterwards, as it turns out.
The authors in this book, all distinguished historians, are troubled by what they see as the militarisation of Australian history, at the expense of other events of social, cultural and political achievement.
The book fits within the history of emotions, as well as in Australian social and political history because, as the authors point out, discussion about ANZAC or military service is somewhat fraught and personal and the myth, peddled by government departments and in schools these days, has supplanted what actually happened, not only in 1915 and other military adventures, but also in the development of the nation. A strong belief exists that ideas like freedom, democracy and mateship were on display and defended in this far-away locale.
Joy Damousi, one of the contributors comments on the public display of emotions associated with this event by saying "expression of strong emotion is a way to avoid discussion and circumvent debate" and this is important in undewrstanding both the issue and what is put forward in this slim text, which discusses ideas about Australia, what Australians actually appear to have been fighting for in 1915 and surrounding years (Empire, White Australia etc.) and the history of reframing this as a nation-building event par excellence.
I'm not a fan of military history, but was familiar with the broad brush of the formative events and the mixed reactions to what followed. In that respect, this text provided content and structure to what I'd learned previously, as well as an underlying theme of online responses to statements made by Lake about the Myth of Anzac.
If you're seriously interested in Australian history and culture, you can't not read this book, an easy and informative read, backed up by references and research.
June 25, 2019
A collection of individually authored chapters, which while well written, overlap largely in content and totally in perspective.
February 13, 2013
At times some of the writers may be pulling at straws but overall it makes a good case that the deification of Anzacs in the last 25 years is a politically driven phenomena inspired by the search for a National Day in Australia that didn't have the negative connotations of January 26th. Even though as the writers show, the diggers were just an invasionary force as the First Fleet (and were conscious that Johnny Turk was just defending his homeland) with an imperative of "Keeping Australia White" as PM Billy Hughes put it. Also the immediate post WWI era, particularly 1920s and 1930s, it was seen as a dreadful mistake, and many diggers refused to march in the parade for the rest of their lives seeing it as warmongering in a new period of pacifism, which of course ended in the 1940s with WWII. In the 1960s and 1970s Pacifism returned, until as politicians were planning the 1988 National Bicentenary and Indigenous Australians became more vocal in their opposition to a celebrations of their invasion and dispossession. Bob Hawke was the first to look to an invasion on the foreign soil of Turkey as a possible solution. Pacifism was an impediment to this myth building. In the 1990s John Howard cleverly crafted our modern day belief in Gallipoli as a nation-defining battle by tapping into the Imperialist Edwardian era belief that only in war is a boy made into a man. Historical revisionist neo-cons just changed Men Are Made In War to Nations Are Made In War as both a less black-armband Nationalist rallying point, and as a hero myth to lure new generations onto the battlefields of the Middle East. Suddenly what was a day of mourning for soldiers to remember a horrible mistake that killed their mates was a drunken party of Nationalistic celebration with deified dead to worship, and a temple on foreign soil.
Read
October 25, 2010magnificent deconstruction of the origins of the anzac myth by examinin g the time in which they lived and social and political context (white australia policy, founding of the nation, our then self-selected place as a British Dominion) and how the anzac myth was pumped and pushed by politicians of all sides since the 1980s and asking the important Question; "should the nation celebrate an historical event which has been mythologized or should we elevate civic and social achievements to the apex of national admiration?"
Can nations be forged in other ways than War? is this a male-centric perception?
Governments of all colours have let down returning Soldiers after squeezing them dry militarily and politically, so why does the myth persist?
Can nations be forged in other ways than War? is this a male-centric perception?
Governments of all colours have let down returning Soldiers after squeezing them dry militarily and politically, so why does the myth persist?
August 4, 2021
This should be required reading for all to bring back some balance into the whole nationalist militarisation of our history. Why do we think our nation came of age invading someone else's country, in war of not our own, commanded by incompetents. Surely a nation comes of age when it achieves such social greats as the minimum wage, voting rights for women and its first peoples. No, this is what we have lost fro the narrative. Sure, it is important to remember the horror of war, and all it's victims, but to place it front and square of our history panders to a 19th centruy notion of nationhood
May 22, 2014
For those who look at Australia's increasing celebration of Anzac Day with a critical eye, this book is perfect. It raises issues such as the history of Anzac Day, its transformation into Australia's de facto 'national' day, and critiques common associations with Anzac, such as that it was our true moment of nationhood and represents 'Australian' values. Did we really fight to protect freedom or did we invade Turkey to help an imperial war?
January 6, 2014
Not as readable as I thought it would be. Would like to see a solution and more exploration of how Australian history should be weighted. That would be a longer book obviously.
June 5, 2016
A good, accessible overview to this topic- suitable for non-academic readers but with useful footnotes to scholarly articles.
April 15, 2023
Bold, especially in the social climate of Australia. ANZAC day, I would consider the top 3 days in Australia.
12 or so times I had to sit through one of our yearly lectures, one of them made me think, why? Sitting in a hall of thousands of people (no chairs, just hard plastic floors whilst the teachers had the pleasure sitting in chairs), even thinking this was somewhat a waste of time. But, saying this out loud would probably be a school suspension.
I'm glad someone had the guts to write a book about how ridiculous Anzac Day is. Crucify me, burn me like a witch, we should not celebrate deaths of 16 year olds in an OPTIONAL WAR. If anything, why not Japan bombing Darwin? At least it was affecting us.
As the book states, it's a marketing ploy to recruit children. It's an attempt to indoctrinate a "spirit" of courage. The day has been used to exploit 'appeal to emotion' in political debates and discussions. Oh yes, media, please tell me how much courage I have because of an event that happened 100 years before I was born.
12 or so times I had to sit through one of our yearly lectures, one of them made me think, why? Sitting in a hall of thousands of people (no chairs, just hard plastic floors whilst the teachers had the pleasure sitting in chairs), even thinking this was somewhat a waste of time. But, saying this out loud would probably be a school suspension.
I'm glad someone had the guts to write a book about how ridiculous Anzac Day is. Crucify me, burn me like a witch, we should not celebrate deaths of 16 year olds in an OPTIONAL WAR. If anything, why not Japan bombing Darwin? At least it was affecting us.
As the book states, it's a marketing ploy to recruit children. It's an attempt to indoctrinate a "spirit" of courage. The day has been used to exploit 'appeal to emotion' in political debates and discussions. Oh yes, media, please tell me how much courage I have because of an event that happened 100 years before I was born.
November 21, 2018
Great read that takes on some important questions on the cultural deification of ANZAC Day. The book looks objectively at a subject a lot of Australians have lost all objectivity on.
The chapter on how ANZAC Day became Australia’s de facto national day is particularly interesting - thank you John Howard for reviving ugly nationalism in Australia.
More interesting that in the years since the book was written the cult of ANZAC has only continued to grow and there is now almost no debate/thought about the role ANZAC plays in our culture. To question or debate is howled down as being un-Australian (another classic J.Howard expression).
The chapter on how ANZAC Day became Australia’s de facto national day is particularly interesting - thank you John Howard for reviving ugly nationalism in Australia.
More interesting that in the years since the book was written the cult of ANZAC has only continued to grow and there is now almost no debate/thought about the role ANZAC plays in our culture. To question or debate is howled down as being un-Australian (another classic J.Howard expression).
April 23, 2018
★★★★☆ | 4 Stars
A potentially controversial topic, this book takes a critical look at how the ANZACs, and Anzac Day in particular, are remembered and "celebrated". It asks some important questions like whether the events at Gallipoli actually "made" Australia and more generally about the use of war as vital to nation-building and national identity. My only minor critcisms would be that is some places it was a bit repetitive and the conclusions for each chapter could have been more developed.
A potentially controversial topic, this book takes a critical look at how the ANZACs, and Anzac Day in particular, are remembered and "celebrated". It asks some important questions like whether the events at Gallipoli actually "made" Australia and more generally about the use of war as vital to nation-building and national identity. My only minor critcisms would be that is some places it was a bit repetitive and the conclusions for each chapter could have been more developed.
October 27, 2016
As a veteran I find this book deeply offensive. The implication that my mates fought, an some died, for the Liberals is a deep insult. Had the author fought for this country instead of bleed it's taxpayers dry his points might stand. In his other books he portrays the British Army as proponents of genocide, in this he denigrates there memory. Are there no depths to which this clown will sink?
May 2, 2022
An interesting and insightful read on how the image and focus of ANZAC Day has changed over the passage of time. There were a LOT of excellent points made in this book and it has made me stop, take a step back, and really look at the WHY behind my own observance of ANZAC Day.
April 22, 2019
important read
December 29, 2021
Nearly a decade on, and still a deeply depressing look at how Australian history and its teaching have been militarised.
Read
January 11, 2022A precise and pointed historiographical critique.
Read
October 3, 2024I feel that some arguments did not feel as connected but I think it was a very important read and reaffirmed some thoughts I have had over the years...
May 26, 2021
Australia did not become a nation through the sacrifice of the men on the shores of Gallipoli.
Our nation was not one that was bought with blood.
Our national day shows what is valuable to us. Is the death of thousands valuable? Is the hot blooded slaughter of innocent strangers our highest value?
What about how some in our nation were the first to recognise the voice of women in voting? Could this be our highest value?
What about the achievements of our nation in the betterment of civilisation? What about the arts, science, laughter, health that our nation has brought to the world? Aren’t these our higher values?
In fact, what is a nation? Isn’t a nation just a land where people can call their home?
If so, our nation was born millennia ago, when the first Indigenous man called this land his home.
That is the true birth of our nation. Australia, a place we can all call home.
Our nation was not one that was bought with blood.
Our national day shows what is valuable to us. Is the death of thousands valuable? Is the hot blooded slaughter of innocent strangers our highest value?
What about how some in our nation were the first to recognise the voice of women in voting? Could this be our highest value?
What about the achievements of our nation in the betterment of civilisation? What about the arts, science, laughter, health that our nation has brought to the world? Aren’t these our higher values?
In fact, what is a nation? Isn’t a nation just a land where people can call their home?
If so, our nation was born millennia ago, when the first Indigenous man called this land his home.
That is the true birth of our nation. Australia, a place we can all call home.
April 10, 2017
I’ve been meaning to read this book for ages, so I was pleased to see it at the library.
What’s Wrong with Anzac? The Militarisation of Australian History begins with an Introduction by Marilyn Lake, titled: What have you done for your country? It covers the reaction to her public lecture which was reprinted in The Age as an ‘Opinion’ piece, and subsequently broadcast on ABC Radio National. There was, she says, an avalanche of correspondence … much of it in the form of personal abuse and accusations of disloyalty. (p.1.) What was most interesting was that many of the most angry respondents said that she had no right to write on this topic (p.4) and she noted that many felt the need to preface whatever they said with their own Anzac credentials, i.e. that they themselves had relatives who had gone to war and therefore did have the right to speak about it.
Well, by marriage, I have relatives who went to war (including some who died there) and the same is true on my own side of the family – but of course they were British (including some who died there) so perhaps they don’t count. However, I find the mere idea that having an Anzac in the family confers some kind of privileged access to the discourse deeply offensive. By definition, it excludes most of the Australians descended from non-British emigrants, and – given the racist policies about the enlistment of Aborigines, it excludes most of them as well (unless they broke the law and enlisted anyway, which at least 400 of them did, much good it did them when it came to accessing any post-war benefits that all the other Anzacs received). There is a nasty little undercurrent in this divisive pseudo-patriotic exclusion, some horrid idea to do with people who are ‘real Australians’ and those who are not.
So you might think that I would be well-disposed towards this book, but actually, it made me feel uneasy. The title is, I think, unduly provocative. And for all that it is authored by venerable historians, I don’t think it is particularly well-written. Much of it is repetitive, a good deal of it is boring, and at the end of the day, while it has some valid points to make, it doesn’t make a very convincing case for an alternative. The argument that there are other aspects of history that ‘made’ Australia seems like more of an afterthought.
To read the rest of my review please visit http://anzlitlovers.com/2014/08/21/wh...
What’s Wrong with Anzac? The Militarisation of Australian History begins with an Introduction by Marilyn Lake, titled: What have you done for your country? It covers the reaction to her public lecture which was reprinted in The Age as an ‘Opinion’ piece, and subsequently broadcast on ABC Radio National. There was, she says, an avalanche of correspondence … much of it in the form of personal abuse and accusations of disloyalty. (p.1.) What was most interesting was that many of the most angry respondents said that she had no right to write on this topic (p.4) and she noted that many felt the need to preface whatever they said with their own Anzac credentials, i.e. that they themselves had relatives who had gone to war and therefore did have the right to speak about it.
Well, by marriage, I have relatives who went to war (including some who died there) and the same is true on my own side of the family – but of course they were British (including some who died there) so perhaps they don’t count. However, I find the mere idea that having an Anzac in the family confers some kind of privileged access to the discourse deeply offensive. By definition, it excludes most of the Australians descended from non-British emigrants, and – given the racist policies about the enlistment of Aborigines, it excludes most of them as well (unless they broke the law and enlisted anyway, which at least 400 of them did, much good it did them when it came to accessing any post-war benefits that all the other Anzacs received). There is a nasty little undercurrent in this divisive pseudo-patriotic exclusion, some horrid idea to do with people who are ‘real Australians’ and those who are not.
So you might think that I would be well-disposed towards this book, but actually, it made me feel uneasy. The title is, I think, unduly provocative. And for all that it is authored by venerable historians, I don’t think it is particularly well-written. Much of it is repetitive, a good deal of it is boring, and at the end of the day, while it has some valid points to make, it doesn’t make a very convincing case for an alternative. The argument that there are other aspects of history that ‘made’ Australia seems like more of an afterthought.
To read the rest of my review please visit http://anzlitlovers.com/2014/08/21/wh...
April 1, 2014
Prior to reading this book I had been one of those people who believed the mythology whole heartedly despite being well aware of all Australia's past struggles at home. I bought into the idea that the nation was born on the beaches of Gallipoli. I was a devotee of the religion of the Anzac.
After reading this book and seeing the way that our leaders have manipulated the history of this country to achieve their own purposes I was shocked and yet not surprised. I was moved by this book in a way that I can't really articulate and I have definitely changed the way I look at our history and the emphasis we place on particular events.
This book was amazing and I believe that people need to at least listen to the arguments this book is making and allow themselves to make a personal decision and an informed decision about what we believe and how far we take that belief.
Loved it. Completely loved it.
After reading this book and seeing the way that our leaders have manipulated the history of this country to achieve their own purposes I was shocked and yet not surprised. I was moved by this book in a way that I can't really articulate and I have definitely changed the way I look at our history and the emphasis we place on particular events.
This book was amazing and I believe that people need to at least listen to the arguments this book is making and allow themselves to make a personal decision and an informed decision about what we believe and how far we take that belief.
Loved it. Completely loved it.
August 25, 2013
It was wonderful to find such a challenging book out there on the market.
Many people have felt uneasy about the growing national preoccupation with nation-building myths based on the losses we suffered in war, and many feel very wary of the quite distorted assertions that are made glibly and without challenge at our days of remembrance.
This book looks at the facts as objectively as possible and compares them to popular assumptions surrounding the idea of 'ANZAC'. The two views seem to be increasingly divergent.
I found this to be a very important contribution to a debate that is too uncomfortable for the media to cover.
Readable and highly recommended.
Many people have felt uneasy about the growing national preoccupation with nation-building myths based on the losses we suffered in war, and many feel very wary of the quite distorted assertions that are made glibly and without challenge at our days of remembrance.
This book looks at the facts as objectively as possible and compares them to popular assumptions surrounding the idea of 'ANZAC'. The two views seem to be increasingly divergent.
I found this to be a very important contribution to a debate that is too uncomfortable for the media to cover.
Readable and highly recommended.
August 12, 2016
This is a terrific, and truly important, book looking at the way Australia has shifted its perception of ANZAC from sombre remembrance to jubilant commemoration. It's such a shame that a country that should be so proud of the fact it didn't need a war in order to unite its six colonies feels it so desperately needs a military myth to kick things off. Should be essential reading for all Australians. (The militarisation that it talks about is a problem in other countries but this is a book written for Australians and will be largely inaccessible to everyone else.)
November 9, 2014
I picked up this book because my lecturer at university wrote one of the chapters, so I thought it would be an interesting read. I wasn't disappointed. The good thing about this book is that it makes you think about the emphasis placed on ANZAC Day in Australia. Yes, it's important to remember those who went to war in the name of our country, but perhaps the best way to remember their deaths is to ensure that we learn from the mistakes made then.
April 23, 2016
Illuminates a lot of the uneasiness I've had so far with the "ANZAC Myth" but quite frankly it's far too short and doesn't discuss anything of interest with too much depth (I mean where was that discussion of AIF involvement in putting down the Eygptian revolt of 1919 for fucks sake).
Somewhat disappointing.
Somewhat disappointing.
January 13, 2013
A great book that gives an un-biased opinion of Australia' obsession with the military and its near deification of soldiers.
June 3, 2015
Topical stuff, and an interesting read
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews