Gordon Barlow

I have just come across a word that is new to me, which probably belongs in my thread in the Lounge section of BE called "new words in my life". However, it's a peculiarly Australian word, so I'll put it here. Am I the only member of BE for whom it is new?

"Anzackery" is explained in this Guardian article from a couple of years ago. Any comments?
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-and-anzackery

Pollyana

Been there 14 years and never heard of it.

ozzieeagle

Not heard the word either. However Anzacs and Gallipoli is one quite contentious issue if you scratch the surface. It's where the anti Brit feeling really comes to the fore, it's also a case of a hugely misinformed Australian public.

Australians almost to a man do not know that there were 3 times as many Brits killed and wounded at Gallipoli as Australians.... Point this out to them stand back and watch the disbelief rise complete with quite a lot of inward and on occasion outward rage.

They've been fed a falsehood with this and point this out at your own peril. They really do believe everyone else was a bit player at Gallipoli.

It's one area where I'm not exactly integrated, as I cant help myself when push comes to shove and they carry on about British generals and colonial cannon fodder.

Gordon Barlow

Strangely, a friend of mine who lives south of Sydney used the word in an email to me dated on 25th. It must be becoming more common, but a cousin in Melbourne had never heard of it. I agree with you about Aussies' resentment of the conduct of the Gallipoli campaign; I grew up with it (the resentment) in Queensland. During our travels in that part of the world in 1965, my now-wife and I made a pilgrimage to Gallipoli itself. At that time there was only a miserable little hut with a couple of rifles and bullets - that was all there was in the way of a museum, and we were the only visitors that week or maybe that month. The clear impression we got was that the Turks didn't regard the invasion as any kind of a big deal. I suppose from their point of view it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

spouse of scouse

This old Aussie knows the history of Gallipoli very well, and neither I nor anyone I know has ever 'carried on' the way you suggest, Ozzie.

It's probably worth remembering why the number of Australian casualties in Gallipoli had, and continues to have, such an impact on us. Our total population was 5 million, and over 28,000 young men were killed or wounded.

However, ANZAC Day commemorations aren't a competition about who had the most casualties by number or percentage, nor is it about praising or knocking any other nation, friend or foe. It's simply a day when we remember our own. Lest We Forget.

Amazulu

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Gallipoli campaign - but you find that with every war story in every country. Take the Battle of Britain. If you believe the mainstream opinion then the UK was on its knees, the RAF was virtually finished and an invasion would have been a walkover. The reality was that Fighter Command got stronger as the battle continued and an invasion would have been physically impossible. The general attitude in the UK is that America did little in WW2 and basically their soldiers came to the UK and swanned around, flashing their cash and shagging their women, yet 30000 of them died bombing Germany - an incredible sacrifice. Douglas Haig is widely seen as the butcher of WW1 because of the UK casualties that occurred under his command but he was trying to win in a hopeless situation that was not of his making

etc

Gallipoli is no different

BadgeIsBack

Well said. Also: Anzac spirit and mateship = British Bulldog and Blitz

And of course people forget the Eastern Front and millions of Russians. It took years for the Brits and Allies to open a front after Dunkirk.

DeadVim

Never heard of the term, suspect it's a media beat-up.

I have attended every local ANZAC Day ceremony here for the time I've been in the country for the reason it is not to score points but to mark the sacrifice others have made to maintain their collective freedom.

In fact, the soldier who made the key speech this year did such a good job to this effect that we needed to email our support of the leader of his unit.

My daughter is picked by her Girl Guides division to give their address at the service and I'm proud of her doing so.

Lest We Forget (all that have lost their lives)

spouse of scouse

Lovely post DV. So nice to read about your daughter too.

My step-Dad of over 40 years passed away a few months ago. As a 15 year old Austrian he was conscripted into Hitler Youth, towards the end of WW11. He rarely talked about it, and always with great emotion, but he saw active duty.

Some time after he emigrated to Australia after the war ended, he approached his local RSL to see if he could be of any use to them. He never forgot the welcome and acceptance he received there.

He was this RSL's supply officer for decades, one of his duties was setting up the annual dawn service at King's Park.

Gordon Barlow

I think we should distinguish between soldiers who defended their countries and those who invaded others' countries. Of course soldiers have to follow orders, or they will be shot; so if they're ordered to kill peaceful villagers (for instance), they had better do it or forfeit their own lives. But I think that the word "Anzackery" was probably invented to say that it's morally wrong to laud the killers of unarmed villagers as "war heroes", as seems to be the custom these days. Not every soldier in every war deserves to be honoured.

Patriotism can so easily slide into blind tribalism, where tribal leaders order the slaughter of foreigners in the name of self-defence. For instance: in my very young days I learned that the infamous execution of "Breaker" Morant in the Boer War was a wicked unfairness; yet according to his Wiki entry I may have been misled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_Morant
Just on spec, I Googled the words Gallipoli war crimes, and to my horror found some quite disturbing entries. Have a look and you'll see what I mean.

Invading countries was severely frowned on during the Nuremberg war trials; and during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights too. And yet, it still happens. That, we should be ashamed of.

moneypenny20

You will undoubtedly know more Australians than I do but all the ones I've every discussed Gallipoli with are surprised there were so many Brits but not that bothered because they commemorate the conflict/date because of the proportionately high number of Aussies and Kiwis who gave their lives. They don't consider it 'their' conflict as such.

As for the Anzackery word, I've never heard of it. The Guardian reporter found a made up word by a reporter from 50 odd years ago and GB's friend repeated it whilst everyone else gave it the consideration it deserves ie none.

spouse of scouse

You seem to have got it into your head that ANZAC Day is a proud, nationalistic celebration of war. You couldn't be more wrong, and unless you're willing to take your rather patronizing 'you need educating' hat off and listen to people you'll never get it.

The theory you've constructed is about as valid as your pulled from nowhere word 'Anzackery', which no one apart from you seems to have heard of. I do, however, note that it rhymes with knackery, which in my opinion is where it belongs.

moneypenny20

Must spread.

Amazulu

Well said SoS - his post was a load of revisionist tosh

It's what we do in the west - honour our military people and war dead

Toe Dipper

It always amazes me that when entering discussions on Gallipolli, people are genuinely shocked to hear the number of British, Irish, Belgian and French casualties which were in many instances in excess of the Australian. (Not to mention the Turks). In fact there is a genuine surprise when the French are raised!

But I guess this spoils the ANZAC story.

TD