Bullets and mortarboards
Michael Leunig
October 25, 2008
On educationIt is said that a good teacher is good fortune. I had many good teachers but only three of them were school teachers.
The first was a 1950s rockabilly ex-shearer who had mistakenly been made a primary school teacher. He taught me that it was perfectly acceptable to waste time singing and yarning, and that ballroom dancing and boxing were skills worth cultivating. He was a terrible teacher, but such good fortune.
The second, also a male, somehow reinforced in me the serious idea of honourable masculinity, an inspiring concept to a spirited boy. The third, a glorious, vibrant Englishwoman, showed me beyond a shadow of doubt that creativity, literature, theatre and humour were all rightfully and joyfully mine. I went to a new high school that didn't have a school building. We assembled in the agricultural showgrounds and had lessons in showrooms and sheep and poultry pavilions, and climbed windmills for physical education.
It was what you might call a benign fiasco, and we loved it.
All too soon it was agricultural show time, so we were herded out of there into the nearby government ordnance factory, where military weapons were manufactured. Within this vast complex was a spare building, a former weapons display facility, and we were allowed to conduct our school there, as long as we observed security protocols and were escorted in and out by Commonwealth police guards each day. A great educational moment occurred one day when we forced open a mysterious door at the back of our woodwork area to discover a room full of brand new machine-guns and mortars. What a rich discovery for a group of 13-year-old boys who were also discovering the art of masturbation.
A number of our teachers were not qualified educators but had been given jobs because of a teacher shortage, and because they held university degrees in the European countries from which they had fled after bad wartime experiences and the traumas of concentration camps. Many of my friends' parents were also war refugees, and this made for a very special school spirit and culture there in the ordnance factory surrounded by barbed wire, guns and uniformed guards.
There was the teacher from the Baltic states with a huge physique and mighty laugh, a boxer who had represented his country in the Berlin Olympics and later been hunted by the Germans and the Russians in turn for crimes and misdemeanours unknown, before fleeing into the French foreign legion and arriving at last, craggy-faced and twinkly-eyed, into the blessed healing company of working-class children in Australia.
Having little understanding of prudery and puritanism, he one night offered alcohol to a few likely lads during a school excursion (me included). Because it was getting late, and thinking it barbaric to go to his room and booze alone, he asked for drinking mates, and of course we were willing and able to sit up late and help him. He gave us much advice that night, valuable secret men's business ...
Eventually, after blasting through layers of basalt, the government built our chicken-coop school on an old military salvage site just around the corner from the ammunitions factory. Our days were filled with the music of chattering machine-guns, used for testing the bullets, and across the road the largest rubbish tip in the western suburbs billowed flames, toxic smoke and giant rodents into the world, giving a spiritual, apocalyptic atmosphere to our otherwise plain little education humpy perched there beside two abandoned quarries and a working one at the rear that never stopped exploding and sending great lumps of basalt shrapnel into orbit over the bleak windswept fields of despairing Scotch thistles around us. Thus our boutique education proceeded with great gusto and good spirit.
Several years ago I was invited to speak at the prestigious Christ Church Grammar School in Perth, and was so overwhelmed by the magnificence of the school buildings and grounds that I began by paying tribute to this glorious educational setting and comparing it to my experience of school. "And just as you can look out through trees onto the beautiful Swan River and hear the native birds," I droned, "I used to look out and watch the rats scuttling from the tip to eat out of our rubbish bins on the bare asphalt."
From the stage I became aware of gasps in the audience and eyes widening and fingers pointing, and I turned to see a huge rat crawling down the wall behind me. Somehow this astonishing synchronicity seemed perfectly in order to me, and with due ceremony I beckoned the rodent onto the stage. With the bearing of Laurence Olivier, the creature came forth and rose up on hind legs to contemplate the assembly, then just as the commotion swelled to a peak, the rodent, with impeccable timing, turned casually and left the stage with a swagger, disappearing behind a velvet curtain.
On Anzac DayAnzac Day has been turned into what? Buried somewhere underneath the new car park at Anzac Cove is an ordinary human heart.
But all this spiritual inflation and emotional conscription - the modern media event, the manipulation for political advantage - they've put a big thumping hoon outboard motor on the back of a tragedy.
Anzac Day, it seems, must now be done with bluster, hoopla and media hypnotism.
Like the landing and the campaign itself, there is something appalling about this in the eyes of many Australians new and old - some disgraceful misuse of humanity by the wielders of political and economic power. On Anzac Day, coffee and jokes with a Turk might be the most meaningful and fair dinkum dawn service you could possibly have.
On clothing I've had no luck with suits and have never found one I would wear. This has caused difficulties. For example, one day I received the strange news that I was to be made a National Living Treasure, and if I presented myself in a monkey suit at the Sydney Town Hall on such-and-such a date - to caper like Bennelong in front of the white folk and the prime minister - I could be inducted into the order of National Living Treasures.
I told the organisers that, no disrespect intended, but I was psychologically unable to wear suits - to which they replied they were sorry and would get by without me. So like Cinderella I stayed home on the night of the ball and swept the pantry, but unlike in her story, the good fairy never turned up.
She knows what's good for me.I made another clothing mistake at the age of 16, when I painstakingly stencilled a large red hammer-and-sickle motif on my plain school football pullover and wore it in Puckle Street, Moonee Ponds, during the depths of the Cold War.
From this I learnt what a middle-aged European woman looks like when she spits at somebody's feet.
I could tell you much about clothing sadness: how an honourable and civilised man can end up with nothing much in his wardrobe apart from tired old work clothes; how the huge range of new-generation men's underpants is a weird and frightening modern tragedy; how an audience can be transfixed by the spectacular leaking of a marker pen in your shirt pocket while you're delivering a public lecture.
The apologyIn his final scenes, John Howard played himself: a somewhat shambling and pathetic curio, the cultural relic of a moribund ethos in which the greatest power is the power of withholding. Withholding practised as if it were an idea or a creed. But apart from being a fool's notion of strength, it is not a creed - it is a strangulating reflex. When the strangling and deprivation cease, the relief is simple and immense.
Thus the ground was well prepared for Kevin Rudd to step in and look good, warm and wise simply by chucking out a few ugly armchairs, drawing back the curtains, and opening a couple of windows to let some light and fresh air into the place.When the day of overdue apology to indigenous Australians came at last, what flowed onto the public stage seemed to arise not only from the truth of tragic indigenous experience, but also from the tangled, neurotic ordeal of cultural wrangling about the very idea of apology and recognition, the back-turning and slow handclapping all a dismal consequence of that tangle.
There is a long way to go, not only in addressing indigenous wellbeing, but in dealing with the degree to which the emotional intelligence and creativity of the Australian culture has been seriously blocked.
While the media depicted the euphoria, I would also report that many Australians took one respectful and solemn step backwards and held their peace, in relief that the thing had finally been done.
Edited extracts from Michael Leunig's The Lot In Words, published on Monday (Penguin).
Spiritual executives should be offensiveSometimes a religious figure, such as a mufti, gives a sermon about human nature, rape and the general sexual madness that sounds a bit like what parents tell their children in private: "Look after yourself, take responsibility, there are some dark forces and crazy people out there who will destroy you if you're not careful."
Only the mufti uses ripe, rustic language, earthy metaphors and unpleasant ideas. He is set up and set upon by a national newspaper and told to shut up and resign. The prime minister chimes in. The mufti is denounced.
We may not agree with everything he says, but we sort of understand what he's getting at. In the great tradition that Australians are meant to admire, he's at least having a go, and in difficult terrain, where all sorts of silver-tonguetied experts refuse to travel and remain silent.
Being offensive appears to be a new type of crime in Australia. And you can commit it without having had any intention of doing so. Somebody, anybody, can find you guilty and that's it - an open-and-shut-up case, all because you spoke your peculiar, passionate mind. People seem to take as much offence as they possibly can these days - it's almost a new type of greed, a new kind of road rage.
Personally, I like my swamis, muftis and bishops to use rip-roaring, colourful language, to be full-flavoured, overproof and offensive - crucifiably so. It's what I expect from prophets and artists, and I would like to see more of it in our modern spiritual executives, who in the main have become polite, insipid and mealy-mouthed for fear they will cause offence and ruin their prospects. It's all very disappointing.
Muftis and bishops should be like ripe camembert cheeses: a bit on the nose and not for the faint-hearted, but memorable.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bullets-and-mortarboards-20081216-6zem.html?page=-1
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Breaking News: Senator Chris Ellison (Western Australia) Called On National Senate To Recognise Armenian Genocide!!!
Letter To Hon Joe Hockey MP, Australia: Armenian Claim
Letter To Hon. Joe Hockey, Federal MP, Australia: Genocide Allegations
Australia To Recognise Armenian Genocide
CANBERRA: Following meetings with the Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia) in Canberra, Senator for Western Australia Chris Ellison called on the national Senate to formally recognise the Armenian Genocide.In what is a major development, . . the Armenian Genocide has been discussed in both houses of Australia's Parliament within three weeks.
Senator Ellison's remarks on 11 November follow the Hon. Joe Hockey's on 20 October, when he called for the Australian House of Representatives to formally recognise the Armenian Genocide.Senator Ellison told the Senate: `A number of senators and members would no doubt have met representatives from the [Armenian] community who visited the parliament this week... [and] ...the issue of the Armenian genocide in 1915 is a matter which weighs heavily with them.'He added: `...this is a very important issue and one which needs to be recognised by Australia.'In addition, Senator Ellison brought to the attention of the Upper House recently-uncovered information of Australia's significant relief effort aiding victims of the Armenian Genocide.Senator Ellison said: `...what is important is Australia's role, and in fact there was a thing called the Armenian Relief Fund of Australia, which operated from 1915 to 1929.
`This relief fund of Australia provided humanitarian assistance to victims of the Armenian genocide.
These relief efforts became known as the first major international humanitarian project provided by Australia and set a precedent for continued support for areas and people in need throughout the world, and that is quite extraordinary when one looks at the history...
'The Senator, who is also a member of the `Australia Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group', urged his colleagues to `acknowledge this as a matter of history', because `bad things happen when good men and women do nothing'.
ANC Australia President Mr. Varant Meguerditchian, who led a delegation of colleagues along with visiting guest Raffi Hamparian of ANC America, welcomed Senator Ellison's advocacy and said it proves his organisation's inaugural Advocacy Week was delivering fruitful results.
`ANC Australia Advocacy Week is all about educating legislators about the reality of the Armenian Genocide and the importance of its recognition internationally,' he said.`Senator Ellison's statement in the Upper House is the start of what we expect will be his integral involvement in our efforts to have Australia recognise the Armenian Genocide.'Armenian National Committee of Australia
www.anc.org.au
Assistant Treasurer Hosts Exhibition ARMENIACANBERRA:
Federal Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP hosted a unique exhibition titled `Armenia' at Parliament House on Monday, as the Armenian National Committee of Australia's (ANC Australia) inaugural Advocacy Week begun in Canberra.
The exhibition was part of a two-day visit to the nation's capital by an ANC Australia delegation led by President Mr. Varant Meguerditchian and visiting guest from ANC America, Mr. Raffi Hamparian.The delegation, through the poster exhibition and direct meetings with more than 40 Federal legislators, covered topics including the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian Relief Fund of Australia, Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenian-Australian community, Armenian trade and Armenian history.Mr. Meguerditchian labelled the exhibition ` the first of its kind held in Parliament House ` an important step in introducing Armenia and Armenian issues to Members of Australia's Parliament and Senators.`The exhibition was particularly important as many legislatures were introduced to our community and the issues that matter for the very first time,' Mr. Meguerditchian said.
ANC Australia Advocacy Week continues in Melbourne, where the delegation will spend the next two days.On Friday 14 November, Mr. Hamparian will address guests at the ANC Australia banquet (click here for tickets), and on Sunday 16 November, he will address the community at Armenian Family Day (click here for info).
Armenian National Committee of Australiawww.anc.org.au
Senator the Hon Christopher Ellison Senator for Western AustraliaParty: Liberal Party of Australia Parliament Contact:Phone: (02) 6277 3221 Fax: (02) 6277 5727
Email: senator.ellison@aph.gov.auElectorate Office: 89 Aberdeen Street Northbridge WA 6003 PO Box 143 Northbridge WA 6865 Phone: (08) 9328 3688Fax: (08) 9328 3900 Toll Free : 1300 301 846
LETTERS WRITTEN TO THE ALLEGATIONS:
From: Harry Blackley To: Hon Joe Hockey MP AU, Turkish Consulate General AU, Turkish Embassy AUSent: November 12, 2008
Subject: Joe Hockey Armenian Claim
Dear Mr Hockey,It was with great dismay that I read your Armenian Genocide speech to the Australian Parliament on 20 October 2008.I will be brief.First, the claim that Hitler made a reference to the extermination of the Armenians has no basis in fact. However, like all propaganda, if repeated often enough is accepted as truth.I am the author of Love & Death in Cyprus (translated and published in Turkey Kibris’ta Ask ve Olum.
It is a fictional novel of a Scottish soldier and a Turkish Cypriot girl, their love story set against the real story of what happened in Cyprus 1955 to 1974.
I anticipate that Korean Rose will be published next year.
This is the story of an Australian nursing sister and a Lieutenant with the 1st Turkish Brigade during and after the Korean War.Every story requires meticulous research.Betrayal is a story set in Van and Eastern Anatolia in 1914-1915. I have read dozens of histories about the Armenians before, during and after that period.
Careful analysis of these large volumes of work reveals the fact that Armenian revolutionaries raised armies to fight against their sovereign State. Only in war zones were Armenians relocated, a practice used in the USA, Britain and Australia in time of war.Turks have long been the scapegoat for the West. Rather than examine and admit their bloody past, they divert the world’s attention by portraying the Turks as the embodiment of all evil.
In this regard you can consider the British during the Boer War, the decimation of the American Indian and the Australian Aborigines and the actions of the French in Algeria.In time of war, governments use propaganda to demonize the enemy.
That propaganda, lies, against the Ottoman Turks is replayed by Armenians ad infinitum.I am an Australian. I was born in Scotland of Irish and Scottish ancestry.
The Armenian diaspora is a very rich, clever lobby group in a number of countries. Political donations buy political support.
But if the Republic of Armenia thinks that it can claim a genocide, it should open up its archives in Boston and take its case to the International Court of Justice. . . .
Regards
Harry Blackley PhC BAPresidentAustralia Turkey Friendship Forum
Source:Australian Turkish Opinion Platform
http://www.network54.com/Forum/407087/message/1226528671/Fax+to+Joe+Hockey
Ref: Australia To Recognize Armenian Genocide
Dear Sirs,In reference to your posting and the texts provided; I herewith submit my contradictory comments and documentary evidence, and kindly request that these be diffused as OPEN LETTER to the general public and in particular to the honorable members of the AU parliament. Full references have been promptly provided in my book downloadable here and below referred attachment. Unless my presented documents or sources are proven to be scholarly untrue, concerned parties are kindly invited in the name of TRUTH and HUMANE ETHICS to review and rectify their opinions based on hearsays only! . .
Yours sincerely,Sukru S. Aya - Istanbul, 09 November 2008
_________________________________________
To The Hon. Joe Hockey's Address To The Australian Parliament
ADJOURNMENT - Armenian Genocide (20 Oct 2008, House of Representatives)
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (9:40 PM) —
I thank the member for Werriwa for that endorsement. In 1939, Adolf Hitler addressed his battle commanders at Obersalzberg with these chilling words:I put ready my Death’s Head Units the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of the Polish race or language.
Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?
This is a huge lie resulting from a blatant forgery. Hitler never said any such words, the paper where this falsification was written to sell to British agents, was not a regular state stationery, was not even typed on a German keyword typewriter and was full of grammatical punctuation errors. You can reach the document on the internet.
For details and links, see my above book, pages 366-367-368-369 documentation proving the contrary! The Hitler quote was never accepted by the Nuremberg trial as valid and it is a total hearsay turned to sound as if true!
On the basis of the worldwide apathy to the plight of an entire generation of Armenians who were rounded up and systematically slaughtered, Hitler embarked on his own diabolical plan of extermination.
Some 70 years after Hitler’s words, the Armenian community is still struggling to achieve recognition for their own genocide at the hands of the Ottoman military during World War I.
In the dead of night on 24 April 1915, 250 Armenian political, religious, educational and intellectual leaders in Istanbul were arrested, deported to the interior of the country and murdered. On that same day, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians in the city were rounded up and slaughtered on the streets and in their homes.
This is now recognized as the beginning of an official attempt by the Turkish government to exterminate its Armenian population.
To pledge that (no existing) Armenian killings "inspired the extermination of Jews by holocaust" is a ridiculous, if not base, deformation. On 24 April 1915, "5.000 poor Armenians were never rounded up or slaughtered"!
Unless this is proven by valid documentation, I call this another shameless lie. On April 15, 1915 the city of Van was occupied by Armenian Voluntary Armies, declared independent republic of Van (photos can be seen in the book "Why Armenia should be Free" on internet.
On April 24th only 235 prominent Dashnakist-revolutionary ring leaders were arrested (after they were warned to stop their treason, since the Allied Forces already attacked Dardanelles in mid March 1915, and ANZAC forces landed on April 25th) and were sent to the interior! None of them was killed; half of them returned to Istanbul within couple of months, those found guilty were imprisoned. Such blatant disinformation does not become the respectable AU Parliament, unless proven by documents to be true!
Over the next three years, the Turkish government ordered the deportation of the remaining Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire to concentration camps in the desert between Jerablus and Deir ez-Zor.
They were marched through the country on foot in a hard and cruel journey. Women and children were forced to walk over mountains and through deserts. These people were frequently stripped naked and abused. They were given insufficient food and water, and hundreds of thousands of Armenian people died along the way. Around 1½ million Armenians were murdered during the Armenian genocide out of an estimated total Armenian population of just 2½ million people.
The relocation (dictated by military obligations because of fifth column activities, explicitly written and photographed in the above book by their prominent leader Pastermadjian) started at end of May 1915, Catholics and Protestants were exempted at the end of August, and by the end of September all relocations were completed, with war shortages and hardships. Dair-el Zor was an agricultural land on the Euphrates and the relocated people had expressed their satisfaction to Ambassador Morgenthau when their leader Bezdjian visited him in autumn 1915.
See page 269 of my book for exact excerpts from Morgenthau's diary also pages 293-297 for other "documented" references. "Some columns only" were attacked by brigand bands and given protection proved to be insufficient because the good gendarmes were already sent to the war fronts East & West & South! They used the same roads, which all others had to use, they were permitted to take their transportable properties on ox-carts (poor families were provided with ox carts), and they could use the railway for the limited sections!
They had to walk the rest over the mountains, same like other people or soldiers did! There were no asphalted roads or motor coaches or even horse carts because the army took all draft animals. Several “relief organizations” provided food to some camps.
The kitchens run by Turks in transfer places or settlement areas were never given any of the relief supplies for distribution! All seaports were blockaded by the British-French navy, and "only the ships carrying supplies for Armenians" were permitted to pass through blockades! Famished Turkish soldiers guarded these supplies.
Only in January, 80.000 soldiers starved and froze to death on the Caucasus Mountains because they had no food or blankets in temperatures -30*C. Was this situation to stay alive when fighting on 3 fronts, to “ perform miracles only for Armenians"?
Total Armenian population before the war was 1.5 million at most. See chapter 15, pages 303 and others for recorded, numbers. Kindly also refer to the Flier Sheet and official records given in the US Congress-Senate report, attesting that 1.414.000 Armenians were alive at the end of 1921! Which figure should we believe? For more details and excerpted references please read other pages of chapter 15. Page 303 of the book, gives diverse records of population! From which reliable source the estimate of 2.5 million Armenian populations does come. Do given all other sources lie?
The report dated 1.3.1914 for land distribution prepared by French-Armenian commission gives the most dependable figure!The intention of the Ottomans was the complete obliteration of not only the Armenian nation but any memory of the Armenian people as well. During the operation, reporting and photography were forbidden by the Turkish government
.The mere existence of Armenians in Turkey was officially denied. Maps and history were rewritten. Churches and schools were desecrated. Children who were taken from their parents were renamed and raised as Turks. Back in 1915, the word ‘genocide’ did not exist, as the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was only adopted in 1948 in the aftermath of the Holocaust. But there is simply no other word for what happened to the Armenian people of Turkey. They were indeed the victims of an act designed to destroy an entire race. The innocent Armenians, who did (or not) cooperate their Revolutionary armies, had to suffer the consequences of war and the fifth column activities, which cannot be denied! Above referred book of Pastermadjian has several photos and paragraphs about their armies, victories, barbarities! In 1915, there were very few cameras with glass negatives and very few photographers, and prohibition of photography of military bases or certain areas is a common practice even today.
There are plenty photographs showing the "bilateral barbarity and butcheries" which are well confirmed and admitted by various US, British, Russian, French and even Armenian writers and documents! There is not a "shred of evidence" that any extermination in any form was ever intended, or that the CUP government had the "cause-means-capacity-benefits" from such a plan or that the losses owing to natural causes of starvation, epidemics etc. were any different than Moslem losses! Why the esteemed MP made no mention of “greater Moslem losses”?
A few starving surviving Armenian refugees returned to their former homeland only to see their country subsequently conquered by the Bolshevik Red Army and incorporated into the Soviet Union for seven decades, until 1990. These survivors were able to tell the world what had happened to their people. There was outrage across Europe as news of the atrocity spread. Today the government of Turkey steadfastly refuses to recognize the genocide of its Armenian citizens. They campaign actively, claiming a lack of evidence. Indeed in Turkey, under article 301 of the Turkish penal code, individuals, intellectuals, journalists and publishers can be prosecuted for insulting Turkey. Therefore, whenever referring to the genocide in that country, people refer to it as the ‘alleged genocide’ to avoid prosecution. According to the "U.S. Congress-Senate" Resolution no. 192 dated 22.04.1922, 300.000 Armenians had returned to South and East Turkey after the Mudros ceasefire (30.10.1918) with the British and French armies. The atrocities committed by the Armenian legion in the French army ignited the resistance of the civilian people plus few Nationalist officers!
The French forces soon had to sign an agreement with the nationalist Ankara government and evacuate the area. At that time, according to the U.S. Relief Report about 300.000 (or all people who had returned), evacuated the area by their own preference, when they were asked to stay since they were the people with various skills
.Turkish penal code 301 is pea-nuts compared to Swiss or French Penal codes, where "accepting this world wide forgery" is made compulsory, regardless of TRUTH, lack of evidence or any legal decision and is irrelevant!.
My book and more than 1500 verbatim excerpts I have used all from neutral or anti-Turkish sources, prove the “wheeler-dealer-money swindling profiteers from this patriotic demonstration, who deprive the poor people in Armenia of any chance of reconciliation, because the diaspora and churches, keep watering the seeds of hatred and grudge. Regrettably, these profiteers could bring this falsification to your esteemed parliament, without a shred of evidence, aimed to over shade the friendly relations between the two nations, despite the ANZAC episode! In spite of this, many countries have officially recognized the Armenian genocide. As yet Australia has not done the same.
This weighs heavily on me, particularly as my own grandfather was himself a survivor of the genocide. He never knew the fate of his siblings and his friends as they were presumably led to their deaths. Similarly, this lack of recognition weighed heavily on the hearts of Armenian-Australians, especially when on 28 August our ABC aired the Family Footsteps program on an Armenian-Australian who had traveled back to the homeland of her ancestors.
Throughout the program, the narrator repeatedly refers to the ‘alleged’ genocide. The doubt that is cast over what happened to the Armenian people by this offensive word has no place in an Australian television program. It is divisive and offensive. Esteemed MP, brings a personal family episode which is not evidence as a valid cause to take a Parliamentary decision!The reply of the program aired by ABC, was already given by me! Please refer here and refute any of my given proofs!. Australia is being pulled into the "trap of animosity" against a country that treats those who died there for a war that never concerned them. See page 662 of my book and an article by Reno Evening Gazette dated Oct.14, 1915, and note the last prophetic paragraph: "If this country, therefore, does not want to appear foolish before the whole world, it will refuse to be duped by impossible tales and will let the Armenians severely alone". Australian people deplore this sort of racism and barbarity.
This country has prospered though the immigration of people from countless nations, including Armenia. I urge this parliament to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was—not alleged, not supposed and not so-called. It was the intentional attempted obliteration of an entire people. To refuse to acknowledge this genocide is to ensure that future Hitlers can capitalize on the world’s reticence in taking a stand.For barbarity and extents of racism desired by Armenians, please view the Map they presented to the Paris Peace Conference in Feb. 1919, and note their demand for the land be freed of all non-Armenian population, where they were not even 15% of the living people. I cordially invite all parties at ABC and commentators to first read the following links, and arrive to their own conclusion, and inform me if they find any mistake in any of the sources I have given.a- and all three documents mentioned therein
b- Flier Sheet about Relief Report can be seen in the first section of the book before introduction.I do not find the other letters of "overwhelming preponderance" , "genocide scholars" worth of consideration or factual value. History must be based on documents. I present you herewith most authoritative Armenian and American documents and as long as these stand valid like obelisks, no literary or foamy dressing is enough to cover the facts. It is time to give an end to these Ali-Baba stories and pull down masks. As I say openly, esteemed people either prove the contrary with authentic documents or SHUT UP!
Yours cordially,Sukru Server Aya, Istanbul 11.11.2008
Letter To Hon. Joe Hockey, Federal MP, Australia: Genocide Allegations
Australia To Recognise Armenian Genocide
CANBERRA: Following meetings with the Armenian National Committee of Australia (ANC Australia) in Canberra, Senator for Western Australia Chris Ellison called on the national Senate to formally recognise the Armenian Genocide.In what is a major development, . . the Armenian Genocide has been discussed in both houses of Australia's Parliament within three weeks.
Senator Ellison's remarks on 11 November follow the Hon. Joe Hockey's on 20 October, when he called for the Australian House of Representatives to formally recognise the Armenian Genocide.Senator Ellison told the Senate: `A number of senators and members would no doubt have met representatives from the [Armenian] community who visited the parliament this week... [and] ...the issue of the Armenian genocide in 1915 is a matter which weighs heavily with them.'He added: `...this is a very important issue and one which needs to be recognised by Australia.'In addition, Senator Ellison brought to the attention of the Upper House recently-uncovered information of Australia's significant relief effort aiding victims of the Armenian Genocide.Senator Ellison said: `...what is important is Australia's role, and in fact there was a thing called the Armenian Relief Fund of Australia, which operated from 1915 to 1929.
`This relief fund of Australia provided humanitarian assistance to victims of the Armenian genocide.
These relief efforts became known as the first major international humanitarian project provided by Australia and set a precedent for continued support for areas and people in need throughout the world, and that is quite extraordinary when one looks at the history...
'The Senator, who is also a member of the `Australia Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group', urged his colleagues to `acknowledge this as a matter of history', because `bad things happen when good men and women do nothing'.
ANC Australia President Mr. Varant Meguerditchian, who led a delegation of colleagues along with visiting guest Raffi Hamparian of ANC America, welcomed Senator Ellison's advocacy and said it proves his organisation's inaugural Advocacy Week was delivering fruitful results.
`ANC Australia Advocacy Week is all about educating legislators about the reality of the Armenian Genocide and the importance of its recognition internationally,' he said.`Senator Ellison's statement in the Upper House is the start of what we expect will be his integral involvement in our efforts to have Australia recognise the Armenian Genocide.'Armenian National Committee of Australia
www.anc.org.au
Assistant Treasurer Hosts Exhibition ARMENIACANBERRA:
Federal Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP hosted a unique exhibition titled `Armenia' at Parliament House on Monday, as the Armenian National Committee of Australia's (ANC Australia) inaugural Advocacy Week begun in Canberra.
The exhibition was part of a two-day visit to the nation's capital by an ANC Australia delegation led by President Mr. Varant Meguerditchian and visiting guest from ANC America, Mr. Raffi Hamparian.The delegation, through the poster exhibition and direct meetings with more than 40 Federal legislators, covered topics including the Armenian Genocide, the Armenian Relief Fund of Australia, Nagorno Karabakh, the Armenian-Australian community, Armenian trade and Armenian history.Mr. Meguerditchian labelled the exhibition ` the first of its kind held in Parliament House ` an important step in introducing Armenia and Armenian issues to Members of Australia's Parliament and Senators.`The exhibition was particularly important as many legislatures were introduced to our community and the issues that matter for the very first time,' Mr. Meguerditchian said.
ANC Australia Advocacy Week continues in Melbourne, where the delegation will spend the next two days.On Friday 14 November, Mr. Hamparian will address guests at the ANC Australia banquet (click here for tickets), and on Sunday 16 November, he will address the community at Armenian Family Day (click here for info).
Armenian National Committee of Australiawww.anc.org.au
Senator the Hon Christopher Ellison Senator for Western AustraliaParty: Liberal Party of Australia Parliament Contact:Phone: (02) 6277 3221 Fax: (02) 6277 5727
Email: senator.ellison@aph.gov.auElectorate Office: 89 Aberdeen Street Northbridge WA 6003 PO Box 143 Northbridge WA 6865 Phone: (08) 9328 3688Fax: (08) 9328 3900 Toll Free : 1300 301 846
LETTERS WRITTEN TO THE ALLEGATIONS:
From: Harry Blackley To: Hon Joe Hockey MP AU, Turkish Consulate General AU, Turkish Embassy AUSent: November 12, 2008
Subject: Joe Hockey Armenian Claim
Dear Mr Hockey,It was with great dismay that I read your Armenian Genocide speech to the Australian Parliament on 20 October 2008.I will be brief.First, the claim that Hitler made a reference to the extermination of the Armenians has no basis in fact. However, like all propaganda, if repeated often enough is accepted as truth.I am the author of Love & Death in Cyprus (translated and published in Turkey Kibris’ta Ask ve Olum.
It is a fictional novel of a Scottish soldier and a Turkish Cypriot girl, their love story set against the real story of what happened in Cyprus 1955 to 1974.
I anticipate that Korean Rose will be published next year.
This is the story of an Australian nursing sister and a Lieutenant with the 1st Turkish Brigade during and after the Korean War.Every story requires meticulous research.Betrayal is a story set in Van and Eastern Anatolia in 1914-1915. I have read dozens of histories about the Armenians before, during and after that period.
Careful analysis of these large volumes of work reveals the fact that Armenian revolutionaries raised armies to fight against their sovereign State. Only in war zones were Armenians relocated, a practice used in the USA, Britain and Australia in time of war.Turks have long been the scapegoat for the West. Rather than examine and admit their bloody past, they divert the world’s attention by portraying the Turks as the embodiment of all evil.
In this regard you can consider the British during the Boer War, the decimation of the American Indian and the Australian Aborigines and the actions of the French in Algeria.In time of war, governments use propaganda to demonize the enemy.
That propaganda, lies, against the Ottoman Turks is replayed by Armenians ad infinitum.I am an Australian. I was born in Scotland of Irish and Scottish ancestry.
The Armenian diaspora is a very rich, clever lobby group in a number of countries. Political donations buy political support.
But if the Republic of Armenia thinks that it can claim a genocide, it should open up its archives in Boston and take its case to the International Court of Justice. . . .
Regards
Harry Blackley PhC BAPresidentAustralia Turkey Friendship Forum
Source:Australian Turkish Opinion Platform
http://www.network54.com/Forum/407087/message/1226528671/Fax+to+Joe+Hockey
Ref: Australia To Recognize Armenian Genocide
Dear Sirs,In reference to your posting and the texts provided; I herewith submit my contradictory comments and documentary evidence, and kindly request that these be diffused as OPEN LETTER to the general public and in particular to the honorable members of the AU parliament. Full references have been promptly provided in my book downloadable here and below referred attachment. Unless my presented documents or sources are proven to be scholarly untrue, concerned parties are kindly invited in the name of TRUTH and HUMANE ETHICS to review and rectify their opinions based on hearsays only! . .
Yours sincerely,Sukru S. Aya - Istanbul, 09 November 2008
_________________________________________
To The Hon. Joe Hockey's Address To The Australian Parliament
ADJOURNMENT - Armenian Genocide (20 Oct 2008, House of Representatives)
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (9:40 PM) —
I thank the member for Werriwa for that endorsement. In 1939, Adolf Hitler addressed his battle commanders at Obersalzberg with these chilling words:I put ready my Death’s Head Units the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of the Polish race or language.
Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?
This is a huge lie resulting from a blatant forgery. Hitler never said any such words, the paper where this falsification was written to sell to British agents, was not a regular state stationery, was not even typed on a German keyword typewriter and was full of grammatical punctuation errors. You can reach the document on the internet.
For details and links, see my above book, pages 366-367-368-369 documentation proving the contrary! The Hitler quote was never accepted by the Nuremberg trial as valid and it is a total hearsay turned to sound as if true!
On the basis of the worldwide apathy to the plight of an entire generation of Armenians who were rounded up and systematically slaughtered, Hitler embarked on his own diabolical plan of extermination.
Some 70 years after Hitler’s words, the Armenian community is still struggling to achieve recognition for their own genocide at the hands of the Ottoman military during World War I.
In the dead of night on 24 April 1915, 250 Armenian political, religious, educational and intellectual leaders in Istanbul were arrested, deported to the interior of the country and murdered. On that same day, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians in the city were rounded up and slaughtered on the streets and in their homes.
This is now recognized as the beginning of an official attempt by the Turkish government to exterminate its Armenian population.
To pledge that (no existing) Armenian killings "inspired the extermination of Jews by holocaust" is a ridiculous, if not base, deformation. On 24 April 1915, "5.000 poor Armenians were never rounded up or slaughtered"!
Unless this is proven by valid documentation, I call this another shameless lie. On April 15, 1915 the city of Van was occupied by Armenian Voluntary Armies, declared independent republic of Van (photos can be seen in the book "Why Armenia should be Free" on internet.
On April 24th only 235 prominent Dashnakist-revolutionary ring leaders were arrested (after they were warned to stop their treason, since the Allied Forces already attacked Dardanelles in mid March 1915, and ANZAC forces landed on April 25th) and were sent to the interior! None of them was killed; half of them returned to Istanbul within couple of months, those found guilty were imprisoned. Such blatant disinformation does not become the respectable AU Parliament, unless proven by documents to be true!
Over the next three years, the Turkish government ordered the deportation of the remaining Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire to concentration camps in the desert between Jerablus and Deir ez-Zor.
They were marched through the country on foot in a hard and cruel journey. Women and children were forced to walk over mountains and through deserts. These people were frequently stripped naked and abused. They were given insufficient food and water, and hundreds of thousands of Armenian people died along the way. Around 1½ million Armenians were murdered during the Armenian genocide out of an estimated total Armenian population of just 2½ million people.
The relocation (dictated by military obligations because of fifth column activities, explicitly written and photographed in the above book by their prominent leader Pastermadjian) started at end of May 1915, Catholics and Protestants were exempted at the end of August, and by the end of September all relocations were completed, with war shortages and hardships. Dair-el Zor was an agricultural land on the Euphrates and the relocated people had expressed their satisfaction to Ambassador Morgenthau when their leader Bezdjian visited him in autumn 1915.
See page 269 of my book for exact excerpts from Morgenthau's diary also pages 293-297 for other "documented" references. "Some columns only" were attacked by brigand bands and given protection proved to be insufficient because the good gendarmes were already sent to the war fronts East & West & South! They used the same roads, which all others had to use, they were permitted to take their transportable properties on ox-carts (poor families were provided with ox carts), and they could use the railway for the limited sections!
They had to walk the rest over the mountains, same like other people or soldiers did! There were no asphalted roads or motor coaches or even horse carts because the army took all draft animals. Several “relief organizations” provided food to some camps.
The kitchens run by Turks in transfer places or settlement areas were never given any of the relief supplies for distribution! All seaports were blockaded by the British-French navy, and "only the ships carrying supplies for Armenians" were permitted to pass through blockades! Famished Turkish soldiers guarded these supplies.
Only in January, 80.000 soldiers starved and froze to death on the Caucasus Mountains because they had no food or blankets in temperatures -30*C. Was this situation to stay alive when fighting on 3 fronts, to “ perform miracles only for Armenians"?
Total Armenian population before the war was 1.5 million at most. See chapter 15, pages 303 and others for recorded, numbers. Kindly also refer to the Flier Sheet and official records given in the US Congress-Senate report, attesting that 1.414.000 Armenians were alive at the end of 1921! Which figure should we believe? For more details and excerpted references please read other pages of chapter 15. Page 303 of the book, gives diverse records of population! From which reliable source the estimate of 2.5 million Armenian populations does come. Do given all other sources lie?
The report dated 1.3.1914 for land distribution prepared by French-Armenian commission gives the most dependable figure!The intention of the Ottomans was the complete obliteration of not only the Armenian nation but any memory of the Armenian people as well. During the operation, reporting and photography were forbidden by the Turkish government
.The mere existence of Armenians in Turkey was officially denied. Maps and history were rewritten. Churches and schools were desecrated. Children who were taken from their parents were renamed and raised as Turks. Back in 1915, the word ‘genocide’ did not exist, as the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was only adopted in 1948 in the aftermath of the Holocaust. But there is simply no other word for what happened to the Armenian people of Turkey. They were indeed the victims of an act designed to destroy an entire race. The innocent Armenians, who did (or not) cooperate their Revolutionary armies, had to suffer the consequences of war and the fifth column activities, which cannot be denied! Above referred book of Pastermadjian has several photos and paragraphs about their armies, victories, barbarities! In 1915, there were very few cameras with glass negatives and very few photographers, and prohibition of photography of military bases or certain areas is a common practice even today.
There are plenty photographs showing the "bilateral barbarity and butcheries" which are well confirmed and admitted by various US, British, Russian, French and even Armenian writers and documents! There is not a "shred of evidence" that any extermination in any form was ever intended, or that the CUP government had the "cause-means-capacity-benefits" from such a plan or that the losses owing to natural causes of starvation, epidemics etc. were any different than Moslem losses! Why the esteemed MP made no mention of “greater Moslem losses”?
A few starving surviving Armenian refugees returned to their former homeland only to see their country subsequently conquered by the Bolshevik Red Army and incorporated into the Soviet Union for seven decades, until 1990. These survivors were able to tell the world what had happened to their people. There was outrage across Europe as news of the atrocity spread. Today the government of Turkey steadfastly refuses to recognize the genocide of its Armenian citizens. They campaign actively, claiming a lack of evidence. Indeed in Turkey, under article 301 of the Turkish penal code, individuals, intellectuals, journalists and publishers can be prosecuted for insulting Turkey. Therefore, whenever referring to the genocide in that country, people refer to it as the ‘alleged genocide’ to avoid prosecution. According to the "U.S. Congress-Senate" Resolution no. 192 dated 22.04.1922, 300.000 Armenians had returned to South and East Turkey after the Mudros ceasefire (30.10.1918) with the British and French armies. The atrocities committed by the Armenian legion in the French army ignited the resistance of the civilian people plus few Nationalist officers!
The French forces soon had to sign an agreement with the nationalist Ankara government and evacuate the area. At that time, according to the U.S. Relief Report about 300.000 (or all people who had returned), evacuated the area by their own preference, when they were asked to stay since they were the people with various skills
.Turkish penal code 301 is pea-nuts compared to Swiss or French Penal codes, where "accepting this world wide forgery" is made compulsory, regardless of TRUTH, lack of evidence or any legal decision and is irrelevant!.
My book and more than 1500 verbatim excerpts I have used all from neutral or anti-Turkish sources, prove the “wheeler-dealer-money swindling profiteers from this patriotic demonstration, who deprive the poor people in Armenia of any chance of reconciliation, because the diaspora and churches, keep watering the seeds of hatred and grudge. Regrettably, these profiteers could bring this falsification to your esteemed parliament, without a shred of evidence, aimed to over shade the friendly relations between the two nations, despite the ANZAC episode! In spite of this, many countries have officially recognized the Armenian genocide. As yet Australia has not done the same.
This weighs heavily on me, particularly as my own grandfather was himself a survivor of the genocide. He never knew the fate of his siblings and his friends as they were presumably led to their deaths. Similarly, this lack of recognition weighed heavily on the hearts of Armenian-Australians, especially when on 28 August our ABC aired the Family Footsteps program on an Armenian-Australian who had traveled back to the homeland of her ancestors.
Throughout the program, the narrator repeatedly refers to the ‘alleged’ genocide. The doubt that is cast over what happened to the Armenian people by this offensive word has no place in an Australian television program. It is divisive and offensive. Esteemed MP, brings a personal family episode which is not evidence as a valid cause to take a Parliamentary decision!The reply of the program aired by ABC, was already given by me! Please refer here and refute any of my given proofs!. Australia is being pulled into the "trap of animosity" against a country that treats those who died there for a war that never concerned them. See page 662 of my book and an article by Reno Evening Gazette dated Oct.14, 1915, and note the last prophetic paragraph: "If this country, therefore, does not want to appear foolish before the whole world, it will refuse to be duped by impossible tales and will let the Armenians severely alone". Australian people deplore this sort of racism and barbarity.
This country has prospered though the immigration of people from countless nations, including Armenia. I urge this parliament to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was—not alleged, not supposed and not so-called. It was the intentional attempted obliteration of an entire people. To refuse to acknowledge this genocide is to ensure that future Hitlers can capitalize on the world’s reticence in taking a stand.For barbarity and extents of racism desired by Armenians, please view the Map they presented to the Paris Peace Conference in Feb. 1919, and note their demand for the land be freed of all non-Armenian population, where they were not even 15% of the living people. I cordially invite all parties at ABC and commentators to first read the following links, and arrive to their own conclusion, and inform me if they find any mistake in any of the sources I have given.a- and all three documents mentioned therein
b- Flier Sheet about Relief Report can be seen in the first section of the book before introduction.I do not find the other letters of "overwhelming preponderance" , "genocide scholars" worth of consideration or factual value. History must be based on documents. I present you herewith most authoritative Armenian and American documents and as long as these stand valid like obelisks, no literary or foamy dressing is enough to cover the facts. It is time to give an end to these Ali-Baba stories and pull down masks. As I say openly, esteemed people either prove the contrary with authentic documents or SHUT UP!
Yours cordially,Sukru Server Aya, Istanbul 11.11.2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
NEOS KOSMOS- NOVEMBER 3, 2008.
A NOTORIOUS PHILHELLENE
Alexandros Logothesis
The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, spoke warmly about the contribution of the Greek community in Australia and clearly signalled a new era for the Coalition's position on multiculturalism. In an exclusive interview with Neos Kosmos last Wednesday, Mr Turnbull confessed that he is a "notorious Philhellene" and shared his imposing and detailed historical knowledge of all things Greek.
The leader of the Coalition also talked extensively about one of Australia 's greatest strengths, "its cultural diversity".
Turnbull explained why the Opposition has shifted positions from originally supporting to currently criticising the government's unlimited bank deposit guarantee measure. He underscored the Coalition's initiative for an immediate increase of old age pensions while pointing out the need for a major overhaul of the present system.
Mr Turnbull reaffirmed his commitment to the bipartisan position in regards to the naming issue of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and shared his cautious optimism for a breakthrough in the new round of talks in Cyprus .
Would you attribute the current economic crisis on 'extreme capitalism' as PM Kevin Rudd has suggested?
What does extreme capitalism mean? The origins of this global financial crisis actually lie in something which is not new at all, which is essentially... banks and other institutions in America lending too much money to too many people who didn't have the capacity to repay the loans. That's what basically went wrong.
These securities... these dud loans... as they turned out to be looked great as long as [home] prices kept rising... if you give a person with no money a loan to buy a house, its a reckless thing to do, but if the house doubles in value you get repaid and he's happy and everyone's happy. So essentially this was founded on poor lending practices and a property bubble.
But, then the securities got sliced and diced and turned into derivatives that found themselves on the balance sheets of banks all around the world.
This undermined confidence... banks stopped lending to each other and you got what is now called the global financial crisis. A better term for this could be a global credit freeze, or a global credit crisis. And as far as capitalism is concerned, you got to remember there are a lot of aspects of regulation and government activity in the United States that contributed to this.
There are a lot of programs in America that effectively compel banks to lend money to people, typically from minorities who wouldn't normally be lent money, we don't have [in Australia] any counterpart to that... you have these big government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were purchasing with the benefit of an implicit government guarantee so many of these mortgages and in effect providing financial backing for what turned out to be very poor practices.
So, the idea that this was the result of laissez-faire capitalism is simply not right. The American governments over a long period of time had interfered and regulated this mortgage market pretty extensively.
Why shouldn't the Australian government provide a 'blanket' bank deposits guarantee scheme?
After all, you initially supported this!
What we did, was to recommend that the guarantee be set at $100,000. And the idea is for a guarantee of that kind to provide comfort to smaller depositors - households small businesses - but not to be so large as to distort the financial and money markets.
That is why deposit guarantees around the world are set at around that level. How does this guarantee distort financial and money markets?
We've heard all about the mortgage funds and the cash management trusts and what happened when you don't have the benefit of guarantees. But let me give you another example. Let's say you're a finance company that provides leasing finance for motor cars...GE. General Electric is one of the biggest companies in the world.
How does it get the money to lend to you to buy a car? It raises what's called commercial paper, in other words, it goes and borrows money from the market and it does it in big licks... millions of dollars. But what has happened, once the government guaranteed all deposits of banks regardless of their size... it means that the smallest credit union in Australia has a higher credit rating than GE does, because it's backed by a government guarantee.
GE's ability to access short term money markets is dramatically reduced. The broader you make the guarantee, the more distortion you create.
And that wasn't necessary. There weren't newspapers writing articles saying Australian banks are going to collapse.
There was a high degree of confidence in our banking system, correctly because it's well regulated and stable. There was clearly a perception for there to be some additional comfort given, principally to ensure that smaller depositors didn't move deposits away from the smaller institutions unnecessarily, because of anxiety.
The deposit guarantee's impact is more psychological than it is financial. So, when the government announced that they were going for the "full thing"... clearly it wasn't our policy... it was quite different from what we had proposed... they said they worked through it in great detail in the closest possible contact with the Reserve Bank... we said all right... we'll go along with that... we'll support that because you're saying you've done your homework you've sat down with the best and the brightest and it turned out that they hadn't done that at all!
Mr Rudd hadn't even spoken to the Reserve Bank and the policy has in any event turned out to be a blunder.
There is no doubt about that! And that is why they have already abandoned it... now they've reduced the guarantee to a cap of $1 million... there are a lot of people arguing that it should be reduced to a figure close to the one we recommended in the first place.
Do you support an immediate increase of the old age pension for both singles and couples? And, how would you fund it?
Any funding has to come out of the budget planning process. It's easy to give the answer depending on the circumstances... governments may be more or less prepared to do it. But, our view is that pensioners have been left behind in the last year or so and that's why we advocated a $30 a week increase in the single aged pension.
What the government has done is that they're making a one-off payment to pensioners both singles and couples which comes to a similar amount as we suggested. So, we're pleased the government has done that and we support that.
Some pensioners have said; "Thank you for making the case for us the government took it up" but we don't seek to claim any credit, we're glad that the pensioners are getting a better deal. For the longer term situation the pension system is being reviewed and while this one-off payment will be very comforting, the pensioners are going to need the reassurance of a more equitable deal going forward.
Given John Howard's reluctance, while in government, to even use the term multiculturalism, what is the Coalition's present position on multiculturalism?
We are a multicultural country. One of our greatest strengths is our diversity.But it wasn't professed in the recent past?
Well I'm not going to debate that, I'll leave you to write about the past. We have a higher percentage in Australia of migrants than any other country in the world, with the exception I believe of Israel where of course all those migrants are Jewish, so they have that in common. We have so much diversity and it is one of our greatest strengths. When you think of how diverse our country is, how rich that diversity is, the benefits it brings us and the fact that we've been able to manage to get along with each other so well...little bits of friction here and there.... but really not very much when you look around the world, it is fantastic! It is one of our greatest achievements. I rejoice and I celebrate the diversity of Australia ! So you wouldn't hesitate, if you come into office, to be using the word multiculturalism?
No! Not at all! But I don't want to get into a debate about semantics, although it's a very Greek thing to do of course. I'm a notorious Philhellene. I rejoice in the fact we have such a strong and vibrant Greek community in Australia .
There's a strong Greek community in my own electorate.
When I go to a Greek Orthodox Church I sit there...
I mean you're carried back to Constantinople .
The robes, the liturgy all have a direct thread right back to Constantinople .
That continuity is so important. Let me give you a very Greek example and this I think might resonate with some of your readers. If you look at, going back centuries, of the most successful, vibrant, prosperous communities in the Mediterranean... you look at Constantinople... you look in more recent times at Smyrna, Alexandria... what did they have in common... diversity, people from every race and background.
I grew up with a friend of mine who had a Greek father that had been brought up in Constantinople and he spoke 7 or 8 languages... his family were in business so he had to.
All of that diversity has been lost.
There are hardly any Greeks left in Constantinople, the Patriarchate struggles to maintain its presence in Turkey , which is a tragedy... you look at Alexandria , that city that was so diverse and quite recently, is no longer diverse.. and of course Smyrna following the catastrophe of 1922... was by far the most prosperous city in Asia Minor and the reason it was prosperous was because it was so culturally diverse.
Diversity, tolerance, cosmopolitanism, all of those things result in a more creative and more prosperous society.
Will you continue the bipartisan support of the official Australian position on the naming of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ?
We don't see any need to change that. The policy for the Opposition is the same as the one we had in government and I haven't seen any move from the government to change that.
Have you spoken to Mr Downer since his nomination as UN special envoy for Cyprus ?
Yes I have many times, he's a very close friend of mine. Has he told you something regarding his role that you could relay to us?
Well he hasn't and if he had I wouldn't tell you! What is your take on the the new round of talks on the Cyprus issue?
Alexander Downer is a very capable guy and he'll do well with that, but obviously its not exactly a new problem.
Well last time I spoke to him, without being indiscreet, he had a very positive attitude to it, but I wouldn't want to say more than that.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon was very wise in choosing him.
Alexandros Logothesis
The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, spoke warmly about the contribution of the Greek community in Australia and clearly signalled a new era for the Coalition's position on multiculturalism. In an exclusive interview with Neos Kosmos last Wednesday, Mr Turnbull confessed that he is a "notorious Philhellene" and shared his imposing and detailed historical knowledge of all things Greek.
The leader of the Coalition also talked extensively about one of Australia 's greatest strengths, "its cultural diversity".
Turnbull explained why the Opposition has shifted positions from originally supporting to currently criticising the government's unlimited bank deposit guarantee measure. He underscored the Coalition's initiative for an immediate increase of old age pensions while pointing out the need for a major overhaul of the present system.
Mr Turnbull reaffirmed his commitment to the bipartisan position in regards to the naming issue of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and shared his cautious optimism for a breakthrough in the new round of talks in Cyprus .
Would you attribute the current economic crisis on 'extreme capitalism' as PM Kevin Rudd has suggested?
What does extreme capitalism mean? The origins of this global financial crisis actually lie in something which is not new at all, which is essentially... banks and other institutions in America lending too much money to too many people who didn't have the capacity to repay the loans. That's what basically went wrong.
These securities... these dud loans... as they turned out to be looked great as long as [home] prices kept rising... if you give a person with no money a loan to buy a house, its a reckless thing to do, but if the house doubles in value you get repaid and he's happy and everyone's happy. So essentially this was founded on poor lending practices and a property bubble.
But, then the securities got sliced and diced and turned into derivatives that found themselves on the balance sheets of banks all around the world.
This undermined confidence... banks stopped lending to each other and you got what is now called the global financial crisis. A better term for this could be a global credit freeze, or a global credit crisis. And as far as capitalism is concerned, you got to remember there are a lot of aspects of regulation and government activity in the United States that contributed to this.
There are a lot of programs in America that effectively compel banks to lend money to people, typically from minorities who wouldn't normally be lent money, we don't have [in Australia] any counterpart to that... you have these big government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were purchasing with the benefit of an implicit government guarantee so many of these mortgages and in effect providing financial backing for what turned out to be very poor practices.
So, the idea that this was the result of laissez-faire capitalism is simply not right. The American governments over a long period of time had interfered and regulated this mortgage market pretty extensively.
Why shouldn't the Australian government provide a 'blanket' bank deposits guarantee scheme?
After all, you initially supported this!
What we did, was to recommend that the guarantee be set at $100,000. And the idea is for a guarantee of that kind to provide comfort to smaller depositors - households small businesses - but not to be so large as to distort the financial and money markets.
That is why deposit guarantees around the world are set at around that level. How does this guarantee distort financial and money markets?
We've heard all about the mortgage funds and the cash management trusts and what happened when you don't have the benefit of guarantees. But let me give you another example. Let's say you're a finance company that provides leasing finance for motor cars...GE. General Electric is one of the biggest companies in the world.
How does it get the money to lend to you to buy a car? It raises what's called commercial paper, in other words, it goes and borrows money from the market and it does it in big licks... millions of dollars. But what has happened, once the government guaranteed all deposits of banks regardless of their size... it means that the smallest credit union in Australia has a higher credit rating than GE does, because it's backed by a government guarantee.
GE's ability to access short term money markets is dramatically reduced. The broader you make the guarantee, the more distortion you create.
And that wasn't necessary. There weren't newspapers writing articles saying Australian banks are going to collapse.
There was a high degree of confidence in our banking system, correctly because it's well regulated and stable. There was clearly a perception for there to be some additional comfort given, principally to ensure that smaller depositors didn't move deposits away from the smaller institutions unnecessarily, because of anxiety.
The deposit guarantee's impact is more psychological than it is financial. So, when the government announced that they were going for the "full thing"... clearly it wasn't our policy... it was quite different from what we had proposed... they said they worked through it in great detail in the closest possible contact with the Reserve Bank... we said all right... we'll go along with that... we'll support that because you're saying you've done your homework you've sat down with the best and the brightest and it turned out that they hadn't done that at all!
Mr Rudd hadn't even spoken to the Reserve Bank and the policy has in any event turned out to be a blunder.
There is no doubt about that! And that is why they have already abandoned it... now they've reduced the guarantee to a cap of $1 million... there are a lot of people arguing that it should be reduced to a figure close to the one we recommended in the first place.
Do you support an immediate increase of the old age pension for both singles and couples? And, how would you fund it?
Any funding has to come out of the budget planning process. It's easy to give the answer depending on the circumstances... governments may be more or less prepared to do it. But, our view is that pensioners have been left behind in the last year or so and that's why we advocated a $30 a week increase in the single aged pension.
What the government has done is that they're making a one-off payment to pensioners both singles and couples which comes to a similar amount as we suggested. So, we're pleased the government has done that and we support that.
Some pensioners have said; "Thank you for making the case for us the government took it up" but we don't seek to claim any credit, we're glad that the pensioners are getting a better deal. For the longer term situation the pension system is being reviewed and while this one-off payment will be very comforting, the pensioners are going to need the reassurance of a more equitable deal going forward.
Given John Howard's reluctance, while in government, to even use the term multiculturalism, what is the Coalition's present position on multiculturalism?
We are a multicultural country. One of our greatest strengths is our diversity.But it wasn't professed in the recent past?
Well I'm not going to debate that, I'll leave you to write about the past. We have a higher percentage in Australia of migrants than any other country in the world, with the exception I believe of Israel where of course all those migrants are Jewish, so they have that in common. We have so much diversity and it is one of our greatest strengths. When you think of how diverse our country is, how rich that diversity is, the benefits it brings us and the fact that we've been able to manage to get along with each other so well...little bits of friction here and there.... but really not very much when you look around the world, it is fantastic! It is one of our greatest achievements. I rejoice and I celebrate the diversity of Australia ! So you wouldn't hesitate, if you come into office, to be using the word multiculturalism?
No! Not at all! But I don't want to get into a debate about semantics, although it's a very Greek thing to do of course. I'm a notorious Philhellene. I rejoice in the fact we have such a strong and vibrant Greek community in Australia .
There's a strong Greek community in my own electorate.
When I go to a Greek Orthodox Church I sit there...
I mean you're carried back to Constantinople .
The robes, the liturgy all have a direct thread right back to Constantinople .
That continuity is so important. Let me give you a very Greek example and this I think might resonate with some of your readers. If you look at, going back centuries, of the most successful, vibrant, prosperous communities in the Mediterranean... you look at Constantinople... you look in more recent times at Smyrna, Alexandria... what did they have in common... diversity, people from every race and background.
I grew up with a friend of mine who had a Greek father that had been brought up in Constantinople and he spoke 7 or 8 languages... his family were in business so he had to.
All of that diversity has been lost.
There are hardly any Greeks left in Constantinople, the Patriarchate struggles to maintain its presence in Turkey , which is a tragedy... you look at Alexandria , that city that was so diverse and quite recently, is no longer diverse.. and of course Smyrna following the catastrophe of 1922... was by far the most prosperous city in Asia Minor and the reason it was prosperous was because it was so culturally diverse.
Diversity, tolerance, cosmopolitanism, all of those things result in a more creative and more prosperous society.
Will you continue the bipartisan support of the official Australian position on the naming of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ?
We don't see any need to change that. The policy for the Opposition is the same as the one we had in government and I haven't seen any move from the government to change that.
Have you spoken to Mr Downer since his nomination as UN special envoy for Cyprus ?
Yes I have many times, he's a very close friend of mine. Has he told you something regarding his role that you could relay to us?
Well he hasn't and if he had I wouldn't tell you! What is your take on the the new round of talks on the Cyprus issue?
Alexander Downer is a very capable guy and he'll do well with that, but obviously its not exactly a new problem.
Well last time I spoke to him, without being indiscreet, he had a very positive attitude to it, but I wouldn't want to say more than that.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon was very wise in choosing him.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Misguided Aussies visit Gallipoli: ex-PM
October 30, 2008 - 6:41PM
Former prime minister Paul Keating says the motives of Australians who show up at Gallipoli each year for Anzac Day ceremonies are misguided.
Speaking at a book launch in Sydney on Thursday, he said Australia's involvement with the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was divided by loyalties to the British Empire and a desire for a more independent Australia.
"On the one hand we were out to prove that 'the British race in the antipodes had not degenerated', yet we resented being dragooned into a war which did not threaten our own country or its people," Mr Keating said.
Given Australian loyalties to England at the time, Keating said it was entirely understandable that Australia troops fought the Turks at Gallipoli, but the experience was shocking.
"Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly-executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched," he said.
He added he was disappointed some Australians still held the view Australia was redeemed at Gallipoli.
"An utter and complete nonsense," he said.
"Without seeking to simplify the then bonds of the empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there."
Mr Keating said he had never visited Gallipoli, and never would.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/misguided-aussies-visit-gallipoli-expm-20081030-5c4k.html
Former prime minister Paul Keating says the motives of Australians who show up at Gallipoli each year for Anzac Day ceremonies are misguided.
Speaking at a book launch in Sydney on Thursday, he said Australia's involvement with the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was divided by loyalties to the British Empire and a desire for a more independent Australia.
"On the one hand we were out to prove that 'the British race in the antipodes had not degenerated', yet we resented being dragooned into a war which did not threaten our own country or its people," Mr Keating said.
Given Australian loyalties to England at the time, Keating said it was entirely understandable that Australia troops fought the Turks at Gallipoli, but the experience was shocking.
"Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly-executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched," he said.
He added he was disappointed some Australians still held the view Australia was redeemed at Gallipoli.
"An utter and complete nonsense," he said.
"Without seeking to simplify the then bonds of the empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there."
Mr Keating said he had never visited Gallipoli, and never would.
http://news.theage.com.au/national/misguided-aussies-visit-gallipoli-expm-20081030-5c4k.html
No monopoly on grief
Tony Wright/October 30, 2008
Gallipoli is a sacred site to the Turkish people as much as it is to the Australians.
MUCH anxious hand-wringing and expulsion of hot air has accompanied reports this week of bones being exposed by work on what is known as the Second Ridge Road on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Passion is to be expected, of course, for the story of Anzac and the dreadful sacrifice of life on that ridge, with its paradoxically lovely view across the Aegean Sea below, is an integral part of the history of both Australia and modern Turkey.
It is natural to recoil at the idea of soldiers' remains torn apart by bulldozers, and it is proper to require respect for the dead.However, much of the reaction in Australia to the story of the roadworks is at best ill-thought-out and at worst an insult to the Turkish authorities who are trying under increasingly difficult circumstances to maintain access not only to Australian, New Zealand and British memorials, but to places considered sacred to the Turkish people.
It is worth remembering that the Gallipoli Peninsula, and the battleground known as Old Anzac, is Turkish land. It is undeniably tragic that some 8700 Australian and New Zealand lives were lost there. But at least 10 times that number of Turkish troops perished defending their land against what was a breathtakingly ill-conceived invasion.
The Turkish people — victors, we might remind ourselves — never needed to declare Gallipoli a peace park honouring all those who died there, including the invaders, but that is precisely what they have done. Turkish troops probably didn't need to allow our soldiers to sneak away, without a single casualty, from the peninsula once the futility of it all was finally realised, either.
Despite all the myths about the clever ruse of the withdrawal in December 1915, it remains beyond belief that the Turks did not know of it; more likely, they simply decided to allow the invaders to leave unmolested, happy the killing was over. What is rarely mentioned is that the Anzacs booby-trapped the trenches with dynamite, killing scores of Turks as the Allied ships sailed away.
Perhaps, then, it might be worth stepping back from some of the more sanctimonious reaction to Turkish efforts to improve a pretty ordinary road that takes a big annual pounding. Those who have spent time wandering the old Gallipoli battlefields know how simple it is to unearth bones.
You need do little more than scratch the surface of the weatherbeaten and crumbling earth beside the Second Ridge Road. Rainfall and snow melt and wind continuously expose ghastly reminders of the slaughter of 1915. The place is a boneyard.
Once, as I walked alongside that road opposite the fearful old fortress known as Quinn's Post, my foot went through the roof of what I can only assume had been a Turkish tunnel, and I still recall the revulsion of touching bones in that soil.
No one is ever likely to know with certainty whose remains might have been exposed during the recent roadworks, but they are vastly more likely to be those of Turkish soldiers than of Anzacs. The soldiers of the Ottoman Empire died in hideous numbers up here. Their name for the area we know as Lone Pine was Kanlisirt — Bloody Ridge.
Thousands who perished during a single assault in May 1915, plus many hundreds who had fallen in the weeks and months before, were buried in mass graves around Bloody Ridge. No headstones for them, though the remains of most of the Anzacs who were buried up there were later disinterred and carried for permanent burial in cemeteries elsewhere on the peninsula.
More than 10,000 Australians and New Zealanders now make an annual pilgrimage to Gallipoli for Anzac Day ceremonies and thousands more visit at less frantic periods during the year. But over the past few years, the Turkish Government has urged Turkish people to visit those weathered hills at least once in their lives. So every weekend, increasing numbers of adults and schoolchildren grind up the road in heavy buses to learn of their own history. The road that takes the biggest beating, and thus needed upgrading, is the Second Ridge Road. This thin strip of bitumen runs from Lone Pine past Johnson's Jolly, Wire Gully, Steele's Post, Courtney's Post, Quinn's Post, rising past the hill known as Baby 700 and beyond, the bigger Battleship Hill, all the way up to the heights of Chunuk Bair.
These names hold within them many of the most haunting stories of the Anzac legend, but the Turkish people have numerous names for particular areas along this road, too. Their most important memorial is a martyr's cemetery built about halfway up the road to commemorate the 57th Regiment of the Ottoman Army. It was here, on the first day of the invasion — April 25, 1915 — that Mustafa Kemal, later named Ataturk, the first president of the Turkish Republic, gave a chilling order to his troops: "I do not order you to attack. I command you to die! By the time we die, we will be replaced by other troops and commanders."
All 628 Turkish soldiers, including the commanders, duly died over the first four days of the Gallipoli campaign, most of them on that first day. Their sacrifice, and those of tens of thousands of other Turkish soldiers, meant that the Anzacs (and the British, the French, the Indians, Senegalese, Newfoundlanders and others regularly forgotten in the telling of this appalling tale) never reached the high ground, and thus never had a hope of success.
For Australians to take the high ground almost a century later about Turkish road building techniques — however unfortunate the result — seems a little rich.
National editor Tony Wright is the author of Turn Right at Istanbul — A Walk on the Gallipoli Peninsula. He has travelled to Gallipoli five times since 2000
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/no-monopoly-on-grief/2008/10/29/1224956134833.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Gallipoli is a sacred site to the Turkish people as much as it is to the Australians.
MUCH anxious hand-wringing and expulsion of hot air has accompanied reports this week of bones being exposed by work on what is known as the Second Ridge Road on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Passion is to be expected, of course, for the story of Anzac and the dreadful sacrifice of life on that ridge, with its paradoxically lovely view across the Aegean Sea below, is an integral part of the history of both Australia and modern Turkey.
It is natural to recoil at the idea of soldiers' remains torn apart by bulldozers, and it is proper to require respect for the dead.However, much of the reaction in Australia to the story of the roadworks is at best ill-thought-out and at worst an insult to the Turkish authorities who are trying under increasingly difficult circumstances to maintain access not only to Australian, New Zealand and British memorials, but to places considered sacred to the Turkish people.
It is worth remembering that the Gallipoli Peninsula, and the battleground known as Old Anzac, is Turkish land. It is undeniably tragic that some 8700 Australian and New Zealand lives were lost there. But at least 10 times that number of Turkish troops perished defending their land against what was a breathtakingly ill-conceived invasion.
The Turkish people — victors, we might remind ourselves — never needed to declare Gallipoli a peace park honouring all those who died there, including the invaders, but that is precisely what they have done. Turkish troops probably didn't need to allow our soldiers to sneak away, without a single casualty, from the peninsula once the futility of it all was finally realised, either.
Despite all the myths about the clever ruse of the withdrawal in December 1915, it remains beyond belief that the Turks did not know of it; more likely, they simply decided to allow the invaders to leave unmolested, happy the killing was over. What is rarely mentioned is that the Anzacs booby-trapped the trenches with dynamite, killing scores of Turks as the Allied ships sailed away.
Perhaps, then, it might be worth stepping back from some of the more sanctimonious reaction to Turkish efforts to improve a pretty ordinary road that takes a big annual pounding. Those who have spent time wandering the old Gallipoli battlefields know how simple it is to unearth bones.
You need do little more than scratch the surface of the weatherbeaten and crumbling earth beside the Second Ridge Road. Rainfall and snow melt and wind continuously expose ghastly reminders of the slaughter of 1915. The place is a boneyard.
Once, as I walked alongside that road opposite the fearful old fortress known as Quinn's Post, my foot went through the roof of what I can only assume had been a Turkish tunnel, and I still recall the revulsion of touching bones in that soil.
No one is ever likely to know with certainty whose remains might have been exposed during the recent roadworks, but they are vastly more likely to be those of Turkish soldiers than of Anzacs. The soldiers of the Ottoman Empire died in hideous numbers up here. Their name for the area we know as Lone Pine was Kanlisirt — Bloody Ridge.
Thousands who perished during a single assault in May 1915, plus many hundreds who had fallen in the weeks and months before, were buried in mass graves around Bloody Ridge. No headstones for them, though the remains of most of the Anzacs who were buried up there were later disinterred and carried for permanent burial in cemeteries elsewhere on the peninsula.
More than 10,000 Australians and New Zealanders now make an annual pilgrimage to Gallipoli for Anzac Day ceremonies and thousands more visit at less frantic periods during the year. But over the past few years, the Turkish Government has urged Turkish people to visit those weathered hills at least once in their lives. So every weekend, increasing numbers of adults and schoolchildren grind up the road in heavy buses to learn of their own history. The road that takes the biggest beating, and thus needed upgrading, is the Second Ridge Road. This thin strip of bitumen runs from Lone Pine past Johnson's Jolly, Wire Gully, Steele's Post, Courtney's Post, Quinn's Post, rising past the hill known as Baby 700 and beyond, the bigger Battleship Hill, all the way up to the heights of Chunuk Bair.
These names hold within them many of the most haunting stories of the Anzac legend, but the Turkish people have numerous names for particular areas along this road, too. Their most important memorial is a martyr's cemetery built about halfway up the road to commemorate the 57th Regiment of the Ottoman Army. It was here, on the first day of the invasion — April 25, 1915 — that Mustafa Kemal, later named Ataturk, the first president of the Turkish Republic, gave a chilling order to his troops: "I do not order you to attack. I command you to die! By the time we die, we will be replaced by other troops and commanders."
All 628 Turkish soldiers, including the commanders, duly died over the first four days of the Gallipoli campaign, most of them on that first day. Their sacrifice, and those of tens of thousands of other Turkish soldiers, meant that the Anzacs (and the British, the French, the Indians, Senegalese, Newfoundlanders and others regularly forgotten in the telling of this appalling tale) never reached the high ground, and thus never had a hope of success.
For Australians to take the high ground almost a century later about Turkish road building techniques — however unfortunate the result — seems a little rich.
National editor Tony Wright is the author of Turn Right at Istanbul — A Walk on the Gallipoli Peninsula. He has travelled to Gallipoli five times since 2000
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/no-monopoly-on-grief/2008/10/29/1224956134833.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Monday, November 3, 2008
the age : My Say
Gallipoli memory 'utter nonsense'?
Your say
Former prime minister Paul Keating has challenged one of the nation's most cherished narratives: that Australia's nationhood was baptised within the Anzac spirit of Gallipoli.Is he right? Have your say here...
http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/10/gallipoli_memor.html?page=fullpage#comments
....
This is my say
J.G. Arslan wrote her say to the above address: for your interest...
One said ; "Gallipoli where the Australians went to the wrong place because another country told to do so."
Thats right!"
Invading a country was/is wrong. Wasn't/Isn't that?
Therefore, I believe, "Gallipoli" should always remind us(Australians) imperialistic wars should never happen again!
Lets we forget to celebrate human dignity.
"War has to be unavoidable and vital, unless it is indispensable, war is a crime." M.Kemal Ataturk
'Lest we forget the ultimate price of warfare' Michael Leunig-April 23, 2005
www.ausgallipoli.net
Julia Gul Arslan
Posted by: JGArslan on November 3, 2008 5:29 AM
Your say
Former prime minister Paul Keating has challenged one of the nation's most cherished narratives: that Australia's nationhood was baptised within the Anzac spirit of Gallipoli.Is he right? Have your say here...
http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/10/gallipoli_memor.html?page=fullpage#comments
....
This is my say
J.G. Arslan wrote her say to the above address: for your interest...
One said ; "Gallipoli where the Australians went to the wrong place because another country told to do so."
Thats right!"
Invading a country was/is wrong. Wasn't/Isn't that?
Therefore, I believe, "Gallipoli" should always remind us(Australians) imperialistic wars should never happen again!
Lets we forget to celebrate human dignity.
"War has to be unavoidable and vital, unless it is indispensable, war is a crime." M.Kemal Ataturk
'Lest we forget the ultimate price of warfare' Michael Leunig-April 23, 2005
www.ausgallipoli.net
Julia Gul Arslan
Posted by: JGArslan on November 3, 2008 5:29 AM
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Turks to limit crowd at Gallipoli centenary
Phillip Hudson October 28, 2008
Latest related coverage
Lessons of Gallipoli
Other related coverage
Bones unearthed by Gallipoli roadworkers
THE Turkish ambassador has revealed visitor numbers will be restricted for the centenary of the Anzac landing at Gallipoli. And he described as "offensive" and "ridiculous" claims that Turkey was not respecting the remains of fallen soldiers in allowing bones to be damaged by roadworks.
After reports that hip sockets and leg bones had been exposed and "sheared in half" by earthmoving equipment, the Veterans' Affairs Minister, Alan Griffin, said yesterday he had asked for roadwork to be stopped.
Human remains had been uncovered along an area known as no man's land between Lone Pine and Quinns Post.
Mr Griffin said Australia knew about resurfacing of the Second Ridge road in August but further work on the "roadside verge" appears to have caused damage.
He said he was "concerned that there is again a problem with a road in the Gallipoli area". Controversy erupted three years ago about human remains being disturbed, and significant sites of the Anzac campaign destroyed, by roadwork.
But the ambassador, Murat Ersavci, told the Herald he had spoken to the governor of Canakkale province who told him there were no new roadworks, just dangerous potholes being repaired. "There are definitely no new roadworks in the area at all. Somebody has been digging at the side of the road, digging things up. Somebody is trying to provoke this."
Mr Ersavci's great-uncle and his wife's great-grandfather lie among the dead at Gallipoli. He said the battleground was also sacred to his country and it had taken "painstaking care" not to damage any historical site while upgrading roads to improve access for visitors.
He said Turkey was planning the centenary of the Anzac dawn landing - April 25, 2015 - and had put a proposal to Australia to create a joint committee to commemorate the day and manage the huge crowds expected.
"Certainly, numbers will have to be limited," Mr Ersavci said. He hoped a system could be created to have "groups of people coming in and out" to maximise the numbers, "but we have to work on it".
Mr Griffin said in April there were no plans to cap numbers for the dawn service.
The Australian writer and historian Bill Sellars, who lives in Gallipoli, told the ABC "Turkish officials have not learnt from history" and were using heavy earthmoving trucks.
"There is a vertical face of dirt in front of me and jutting out of it are bones - what looks to be a hip socket here and next to it what looks to be a leg bone that is brown and grey but on the end of it, white where it has been sheared in half by this earthmoving equipment," he said.
Mr Ersavci said a million people had fought at Gallipoli and it was "unavoidable to come across some bones" but Turks would be upset by claims of neglect. "We are very close friends; we are co-operating very closely. Gallipoli is in Turkey. It's Turkish soil. For all of us it is a very revered site, as it is to others. I feel really offended when somebody comes up and says these Turks don't know history."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/turks-to-limit-crowd-at-gallipoli-centenary/2008/10/27/1224955951270.html
Latest related coverage
Lessons of Gallipoli
Other related coverage
Bones unearthed by Gallipoli roadworkers
THE Turkish ambassador has revealed visitor numbers will be restricted for the centenary of the Anzac landing at Gallipoli. And he described as "offensive" and "ridiculous" claims that Turkey was not respecting the remains of fallen soldiers in allowing bones to be damaged by roadworks.
After reports that hip sockets and leg bones had been exposed and "sheared in half" by earthmoving equipment, the Veterans' Affairs Minister, Alan Griffin, said yesterday he had asked for roadwork to be stopped.
Human remains had been uncovered along an area known as no man's land between Lone Pine and Quinns Post.
Mr Griffin said Australia knew about resurfacing of the Second Ridge road in August but further work on the "roadside verge" appears to have caused damage.
He said he was "concerned that there is again a problem with a road in the Gallipoli area". Controversy erupted three years ago about human remains being disturbed, and significant sites of the Anzac campaign destroyed, by roadwork.
But the ambassador, Murat Ersavci, told the Herald he had spoken to the governor of Canakkale province who told him there were no new roadworks, just dangerous potholes being repaired. "There are definitely no new roadworks in the area at all. Somebody has been digging at the side of the road, digging things up. Somebody is trying to provoke this."
Mr Ersavci's great-uncle and his wife's great-grandfather lie among the dead at Gallipoli. He said the battleground was also sacred to his country and it had taken "painstaking care" not to damage any historical site while upgrading roads to improve access for visitors.
He said Turkey was planning the centenary of the Anzac dawn landing - April 25, 2015 - and had put a proposal to Australia to create a joint committee to commemorate the day and manage the huge crowds expected.
"Certainly, numbers will have to be limited," Mr Ersavci said. He hoped a system could be created to have "groups of people coming in and out" to maximise the numbers, "but we have to work on it".
Mr Griffin said in April there were no plans to cap numbers for the dawn service.
The Australian writer and historian Bill Sellars, who lives in Gallipoli, told the ABC "Turkish officials have not learnt from history" and were using heavy earthmoving trucks.
"There is a vertical face of dirt in front of me and jutting out of it are bones - what looks to be a hip socket here and next to it what looks to be a leg bone that is brown and grey but on the end of it, white where it has been sheared in half by this earthmoving equipment," he said.
Mr Ersavci said a million people had fought at Gallipoli and it was "unavoidable to come across some bones" but Turks would be upset by claims of neglect. "We are very close friends; we are co-operating very closely. Gallipoli is in Turkey. It's Turkish soil. For all of us it is a very revered site, as it is to others. I feel really offended when somebody comes up and says these Turks don't know history."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/turks-to-limit-crowd-at-gallipoli-centenary/2008/10/27/1224955951270.html
Bones unearthed by Gallipoli roadworkers
Arjun RamachandranOctober 27, 2008
Other related coverage
Turks to limit crowd at Gallipoli centenary
Lessons of Gallipoli
add to world gallipoli story
Bones have reportedly been dug up, in some cases sliced in two by earth-moving machinery, during new roadworks at Gallipoli.
Road crews have been widening Second Ridge Road, which runs along what was the "no man's land" between Anzac and Turkish troops during World War I, and is now an unmarked grave for thousands of soldiers, the ABC said.
--------------
Do you know more? Are you in Gallipoli? Message 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764) or email us with information or images.
--------------
Bones could now be seen at the side of the road and some had been cut in two by heavy machinery, it said.
The risk of bones being dug up by roadworks has been known about for some time, as evident in a Senate inquiry in 2005 into issues surrounding the Gallipoli Peninsula.
"Both the Australian and Turkish governments also acknowledge that, close by the Second Ridge road, there are areas of extreme military heritage sensitivity," the Senate report said.
"[Australian historian William] Sellars commented in his submission that any roadwork ... would disturb many more human remains than were unearthed by the roadworks at Anzac Cove.
"Australian and Turkish authorities are clearly aware of these risks."
National Trust of Australia heritage officer Peter Dowling also said he found jaw, leg and hip bones along the Second Ridge Road in March this year.
"These new finds, this time almost certainly from another two individuals, increases the previously stated trust's concerns over the preservation and management of the unrecovered remains of soldiers," he wrote in a letter posted on the trust's website.
"The Second Ridge Road has been ear-marked for upgrading in the near future as part of the Turkish Government's programme of road improvements in the Gallipoli battlefields.
"The trust considers it imperative that a programme of management as outlined in our previous representations be put in place to respectfully manage and conserve these remains."Witnesses in Turkey say there are bones jutting out of the ground which show visible marks from where earth-moving equipment has sliced them in half. "Turkish officials have not learnt from history," Mr Sellers, who lives in Turkey, told ABC Radio."There is just a disregard, I feel, for the actual physical terrain and the history that that land represents."It was too late for the immediate area around the road, Mr Sellers said."It's not too late to make sure that other parts of the battlefield are not treated in a similar way and yet more of our heritage - the heritage that Turkey and Australia share - is buried beneath concrete, is ripped out by bulldozers."- with AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bones-unearthed-by-gallipoli-roadworkers/2008/10/27/1224955899754.html
Other related coverage
Turks to limit crowd at Gallipoli centenary
Lessons of Gallipoli
add to world gallipoli story
Bones have reportedly been dug up, in some cases sliced in two by earth-moving machinery, during new roadworks at Gallipoli.
Road crews have been widening Second Ridge Road, which runs along what was the "no man's land" between Anzac and Turkish troops during World War I, and is now an unmarked grave for thousands of soldiers, the ABC said.
--------------
Do you know more? Are you in Gallipoli? Message 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764) or email us with information or images.
--------------
Bones could now be seen at the side of the road and some had been cut in two by heavy machinery, it said.
The risk of bones being dug up by roadworks has been known about for some time, as evident in a Senate inquiry in 2005 into issues surrounding the Gallipoli Peninsula.
"Both the Australian and Turkish governments also acknowledge that, close by the Second Ridge road, there are areas of extreme military heritage sensitivity," the Senate report said.
"[Australian historian William] Sellars commented in his submission that any roadwork ... would disturb many more human remains than were unearthed by the roadworks at Anzac Cove.
"Australian and Turkish authorities are clearly aware of these risks."
National Trust of Australia heritage officer Peter Dowling also said he found jaw, leg and hip bones along the Second Ridge Road in March this year.
"These new finds, this time almost certainly from another two individuals, increases the previously stated trust's concerns over the preservation and management of the unrecovered remains of soldiers," he wrote in a letter posted on the trust's website.
"The Second Ridge Road has been ear-marked for upgrading in the near future as part of the Turkish Government's programme of road improvements in the Gallipoli battlefields.
"The trust considers it imperative that a programme of management as outlined in our previous representations be put in place to respectfully manage and conserve these remains."Witnesses in Turkey say there are bones jutting out of the ground which show visible marks from where earth-moving equipment has sliced them in half. "Turkish officials have not learnt from history," Mr Sellers, who lives in Turkey, told ABC Radio."There is just a disregard, I feel, for the actual physical terrain and the history that that land represents."It was too late for the immediate area around the road, Mr Sellers said."It's not too late to make sure that other parts of the battlefield are not treated in a similar way and yet more of our heritage - the heritage that Turkey and Australia share - is buried beneath concrete, is ripped out by bulldozers."- with AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bones-unearthed-by-gallipoli-roadworkers/2008/10/27/1224955899754.html
Lessons of Gallipoli
Turkish Ambassador of Australia N. Murat Ersavci
October 28, 2008
As with hundreds of thousands of Turks, every time I visit Gallipoli and the Straits of Dardanelles, I am reminded of the ways in which history reaches into our lives.
Gallipoli touches my own family life in several ways. My wife and I both lost members of our families who lie buried there. They perished at a young age defending their homeland. Their relatives, just as in Australia, have never forgotten them and mourn them still.
They and other Turkish soldiers who fell there could not have known and I like to think they would have rejoiced that within a few decades the cause of honoring the dead on both sides in this horrendous campaign would bring Turkey and its former foes, particularly the ANZAC countries, closer together.
The Gallipoli landings were an invasion which was the result of a strategic misjudgment. For Turks, as well as Australians and New Zealanders, this war had its epic nation-building aspects. The Republic of Turkey was born out of its ashes. The aim of Gallipoli, let us remember, was to wipe Turkey off the map.
No one will question either the importance of the campaign or its effect on the creation of the national identities of modern Australia and New Zealand.
The deep wounds of the war were healed with the spirit of reconciliation by post-war leaders, led by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey and, of course, also the principal defender at Gallipoli.
I know they have often been repeated but it is worth stating again Ataturk's words, said in the 1930's: "To those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives; you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, their mothers, who sent your sons from far-away countries, wipe away your tears; your sons now lie in our bosom and are at peace. After losing their lives in this land, they have become our sons as well."
Despite the peace that has come to it, Gallipoli never loses the power to shock. Wandering over the battlefield today, the wooded areas, one can still find bones strewn across the ground. The work of looking after the site, the cemeteries, and the memorials, is one that never finishes. The battle sites are carefully tended in accordance with the Gallipoli Peace Park Long Term Development and Preservation Plan.
One of its goals is to carefully improve the road system, taking painstaking care not to damage its historical outlook and make the park more accessible to visits, particularly at the annual ceremonies in April, but also at other times.
So I was dismayed at the recent onslaught against the Turkish authorities by Mr. Bill Sellars and some media in today's news.
Before looking at specific aspects of what he said, I will consider the fundamental one. Gallipoli is in Turkey. Yet Sellars can say: Turkish officials have not learnt from history. There is disregard for the actual physical terrain; for history that land represents.
These are not very helpful words. They will be offensive to a good many people in Turkey. The Gallipoli peninsula is an integral part of Turkey and any special conditions there are the result of agreements by Turkey, entered into voluntarily in the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect.
All of us who work so hard each year to keep the Gallipoli spirit" alive, whether it be in Australia, New Zealand, or in Turkey or elsewhere, will feel that such words may have made our work a little more difficult.
However, I am cheered by the words of RSL National President Major- General Bill Crews, who has stated that criticism of Turkish authorities not understanding their history, I find unacceptable because indeed this is the place that modern Turkey has its foundation. I thank him for his insight.
Great amounts of effort and considerable sums of money are spent every year by my Government, not only for the maintenance of the battle sites, but also for the visitors' health, well-being and security.
Just regulating the traffic during the ceremonies, caused by thousands of visiting Australians and New Zealanders, is a huge task. Work is indeed going ahead on a road to facilitate better access to the site. It is not a breach of agreements.
Access activities are specifically mentioned in the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. So the old road to Anzac Cove, a name recognized as such by Turkey, because of the very warm relations between our countries, is being repaired and somewhat widened through close cooperation between our countries to allow access to the increasing number of visitors.
The need is real. Tens of thousands of Turks, Australians and New Zealanders, many of them young people, as well as others, visit the Gallipoli battle sites. Accommodating the ever-increasing number of visitors, and conserving this important part of the history of our nations, is a formidable task for the Turkish authorities.
If the work is not done, then the spill-over effects on some peak occasions could be far worse.
N. Murat Ersavci is Turkey's Ambassador to Australia
So I was dismayed at the recent onslaught against the Turkish authorities by Mr. Bill Sellars and some media in today's news.
Before looking at specific aspects of what he said, I will consider the fundamental one. Gallipoli is in Turkey. Yet Sellars can say: Turkish officials have not learnt from history. There is disregard for the actual physical terrain; for history that land represents.
These are not very helpful words. They will be offensive to a good many people in Turkey. The Gallipoli peninsula is an integral part of Turkey and any special conditions there are the result of agreements by Turkey, entered into voluntarily in the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect.
All of us who work so hard each year to keep the Gallipoli spirit" alive, whether it be in Australia, New Zealand, or in Turkey or elsewhere, will feel that such words may have made our work a little more difficult.
However, I am cheered by the words of RSL National President Major- General Bill Crews, who has stated that criticism of Turkish authorities not understanding their history, I find unacceptable because indeed this is the place that modern Turkey has its foundation. I thank him for his insight.
Great amounts of effort and considerable sums of money are spent every year by my Government, not only for the maintenance of the battle sites, but also for the visitors' health, well-being and security.
Just regulating the traffic during the ceremonies, caused by thousands of visiting Australians and New Zealanders, is a huge task. Work is indeed going ahead on a road to facilitate better access to the site. It is not a breach of agreements.
Access activities are specifically mentioned in the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. So the old road to Anzac Cove, a name recognized as such by Turkey, because of the very warm relations between our countries, is being repaired and somewhat widened through close cooperation between our countries to allow access to the increasing number of visitors.
The need is real. Tens of thousands of Turks, Australians and New Zealanders, many of them young people, as well as others, visit the Gallipoli battle sites. Accommodating the ever-increasing number of visitors, and conserving this important part of the history of our nations, is a formidable task for the Turkish authorities.
If the work is not done, then the spill-over effects on some peak occasions could be far worse.
N. Murat Ersavci is Turkey's Ambassador to Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/lessons-of-gallipoli/2008/10/27/1224955952386.html
October 28, 2008
As with hundreds of thousands of Turks, every time I visit Gallipoli and the Straits of Dardanelles, I am reminded of the ways in which history reaches into our lives.
Gallipoli touches my own family life in several ways. My wife and I both lost members of our families who lie buried there. They perished at a young age defending their homeland. Their relatives, just as in Australia, have never forgotten them and mourn them still.
They and other Turkish soldiers who fell there could not have known and I like to think they would have rejoiced that within a few decades the cause of honoring the dead on both sides in this horrendous campaign would bring Turkey and its former foes, particularly the ANZAC countries, closer together.
The Gallipoli landings were an invasion which was the result of a strategic misjudgment. For Turks, as well as Australians and New Zealanders, this war had its epic nation-building aspects. The Republic of Turkey was born out of its ashes. The aim of Gallipoli, let us remember, was to wipe Turkey off the map.
No one will question either the importance of the campaign or its effect on the creation of the national identities of modern Australia and New Zealand.
The deep wounds of the war were healed with the spirit of reconciliation by post-war leaders, led by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey and, of course, also the principal defender at Gallipoli.
I know they have often been repeated but it is worth stating again Ataturk's words, said in the 1930's: "To those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives; you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, their mothers, who sent your sons from far-away countries, wipe away your tears; your sons now lie in our bosom and are at peace. After losing their lives in this land, they have become our sons as well."
Despite the peace that has come to it, Gallipoli never loses the power to shock. Wandering over the battlefield today, the wooded areas, one can still find bones strewn across the ground. The work of looking after the site, the cemeteries, and the memorials, is one that never finishes. The battle sites are carefully tended in accordance with the Gallipoli Peace Park Long Term Development and Preservation Plan.
One of its goals is to carefully improve the road system, taking painstaking care not to damage its historical outlook and make the park more accessible to visits, particularly at the annual ceremonies in April, but also at other times.
So I was dismayed at the recent onslaught against the Turkish authorities by Mr. Bill Sellars and some media in today's news.
Before looking at specific aspects of what he said, I will consider the fundamental one. Gallipoli is in Turkey. Yet Sellars can say: Turkish officials have not learnt from history. There is disregard for the actual physical terrain; for history that land represents.
These are not very helpful words. They will be offensive to a good many people in Turkey. The Gallipoli peninsula is an integral part of Turkey and any special conditions there are the result of agreements by Turkey, entered into voluntarily in the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect.
All of us who work so hard each year to keep the Gallipoli spirit" alive, whether it be in Australia, New Zealand, or in Turkey or elsewhere, will feel that such words may have made our work a little more difficult.
However, I am cheered by the words of RSL National President Major- General Bill Crews, who has stated that criticism of Turkish authorities not understanding their history, I find unacceptable because indeed this is the place that modern Turkey has its foundation. I thank him for his insight.
Great amounts of effort and considerable sums of money are spent every year by my Government, not only for the maintenance of the battle sites, but also for the visitors' health, well-being and security.
Just regulating the traffic during the ceremonies, caused by thousands of visiting Australians and New Zealanders, is a huge task. Work is indeed going ahead on a road to facilitate better access to the site. It is not a breach of agreements.
Access activities are specifically mentioned in the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. So the old road to Anzac Cove, a name recognized as such by Turkey, because of the very warm relations between our countries, is being repaired and somewhat widened through close cooperation between our countries to allow access to the increasing number of visitors.
The need is real. Tens of thousands of Turks, Australians and New Zealanders, many of them young people, as well as others, visit the Gallipoli battle sites. Accommodating the ever-increasing number of visitors, and conserving this important part of the history of our nations, is a formidable task for the Turkish authorities.
If the work is not done, then the spill-over effects on some peak occasions could be far worse.
N. Murat Ersavci is Turkey's Ambassador to Australia
So I was dismayed at the recent onslaught against the Turkish authorities by Mr. Bill Sellars and some media in today's news.
Before looking at specific aspects of what he said, I will consider the fundamental one. Gallipoli is in Turkey. Yet Sellars can say: Turkish officials have not learnt from history. There is disregard for the actual physical terrain; for history that land represents.
These are not very helpful words. They will be offensive to a good many people in Turkey. The Gallipoli peninsula is an integral part of Turkey and any special conditions there are the result of agreements by Turkey, entered into voluntarily in the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect.
All of us who work so hard each year to keep the Gallipoli spirit" alive, whether it be in Australia, New Zealand, or in Turkey or elsewhere, will feel that such words may have made our work a little more difficult.
However, I am cheered by the words of RSL National President Major- General Bill Crews, who has stated that criticism of Turkish authorities not understanding their history, I find unacceptable because indeed this is the place that modern Turkey has its foundation. I thank him for his insight.
Great amounts of effort and considerable sums of money are spent every year by my Government, not only for the maintenance of the battle sites, but also for the visitors' health, well-being and security.
Just regulating the traffic during the ceremonies, caused by thousands of visiting Australians and New Zealanders, is a huge task. Work is indeed going ahead on a road to facilitate better access to the site. It is not a breach of agreements.
Access activities are specifically mentioned in the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne. So the old road to Anzac Cove, a name recognized as such by Turkey, because of the very warm relations between our countries, is being repaired and somewhat widened through close cooperation between our countries to allow access to the increasing number of visitors.
The need is real. Tens of thousands of Turks, Australians and New Zealanders, many of them young people, as well as others, visit the Gallipoli battle sites. Accommodating the ever-increasing number of visitors, and conserving this important part of the history of our nations, is a formidable task for the Turkish authorities.
If the work is not done, then the spill-over effects on some peak occasions could be far worse.
N. Murat Ersavci is Turkey's Ambassador to Australia
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/lessons-of-gallipoli/2008/10/27/1224955952386.html
Gallipoli drained Turkish resources
Hal Colebatch
November 03, 2008
PAUL Keating's comments on Gallipoli can be dismissed as the outpourings of a chronically disaffected and embittered man cherishing some kind of private ancestral grudge. Kevin Rudd is right to disassociate himself, and Australians, from Keating's remarks.
Somehow I am reminded of the stage Irishman whose version of history included the complaint: "Shure, didn't the English hang my grandfather, and him only four years old!" No one, as far as I know, has ever said, as Keating claims, that Gallipoli redeemed Australia. I am unaware that anyone has thought it needed redeeming.
What Gallipoli did was prove, for the first time, the courage and fighting abilities of the Australian soldier in extraordinarily difficult conditions of both attack and defence over several months. It laid the foundations of Australia's military tradition: had the Australian forces performed less bravely, Australia's subsequent history, including its contribution to the fight against Nazism and Japanese aggression, may well have been different and less admirable and fortunate.
However, there is another point about Gallipoli's place in history that is relevant but which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been raised: although it is taken for granted by almost everyone that Gallipoli was a total defeat, this is not necessarily the case.
Certainly it was a tactical defeat, but in strategic terms that is not the last word on the matter.
It is true that it did not achieve its objective, which was to knock Turkey out of the war and relieve the pressure on Russia. A lot of men died to hold a few miles of barren exposed ground for a few months, and the survivors then withdrew.
It was no victory and, as every war college teaches, there is no substitute for victory.
But wait a minute. For the Allies, Gallipoli was a sideshow. Compared with the Western Front, their commitment there was relatively small. For the Turks, on the other hand, it was the supreme effort. For obvious reasons, they gave defence of their homeland priority over campaigns farther afield.
Turkey in 1915, though it had begun making efforts to modernise, was by European standards a very poor country and the Turkish effort at Gallipoli was proportionately much greater than the Allied effort. It was a desperate, all-or-nothing matter.
This supreme effort meant Turkey had no strength to spare to take the offensive in any other theatre. In Palestine and the Middle East, instead of pushing forward and taking the Suez Canal, it was forced to fight a defensive war and was eventually pushed back by small British and Australian forces. The great and valiant Turkish effort at Gallipoli also meant that after the campaign the Turkish army was exhausted. As Lenin said, everything is connected to everything else.
Counterfactuals are not history. But it is worth considering that had Turkish forces not been tied up at Gallipoli, they may have captured the Suez Canal, a vital Allied asset. This would certainly not have been in Australia's interests. They may have also consolidated a hold on the Middle Eastern oil fields, the main oil source for the British fleet.
The Germans, meanwhile, were making efforts to rouse the Muslim world, including the large Muslim population of India, for an anti-British jihad. German propaganda was even claiming the kaiser was descended from the prophet Mohammed. If, instead of barely holding their own, Turkish armies had been on the offensive elsewhere, the idea of a pan-Muslim jihad may have become a lot more plausible and attractive.
Further, while the Germans did not make anything like the same investment in Gallipoli as the Allies, they too were pouring arms and other supplies into Turkey for the campaign. World War I was a war of material, and this German expenditure, although not a good trade from the Allied point of view, was at least a debit on the German side of the ledger: what went to Gallipoli was not available for the decisive battles on the Western Front.
Thus, there is a case that Gallipoli (like, in its way, Vietnam) was by no means totally futile. The Allies tied up enemy forces much greater than their own numbers. I do not suggest the matter is cut and dried. Working out exact relative advantages and disadvantages would be complex and the final verdict one on which historians would probably never agree. But in strategic terms Gallipoli was not necessarily a total loss, and those who died there did not die completely in vain.
But even if it had been a complete and unredeemed disaster, it is still fitting that the Australians and others who fought and died there are honoured and that it should be a place of pilgrimage for their descendants and heirs.
Hal Colebatch is an author.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24591041-7583,00.html
November 03, 2008
PAUL Keating's comments on Gallipoli can be dismissed as the outpourings of a chronically disaffected and embittered man cherishing some kind of private ancestral grudge. Kevin Rudd is right to disassociate himself, and Australians, from Keating's remarks.
Somehow I am reminded of the stage Irishman whose version of history included the complaint: "Shure, didn't the English hang my grandfather, and him only four years old!" No one, as far as I know, has ever said, as Keating claims, that Gallipoli redeemed Australia. I am unaware that anyone has thought it needed redeeming.
What Gallipoli did was prove, for the first time, the courage and fighting abilities of the Australian soldier in extraordinarily difficult conditions of both attack and defence over several months. It laid the foundations of Australia's military tradition: had the Australian forces performed less bravely, Australia's subsequent history, including its contribution to the fight against Nazism and Japanese aggression, may well have been different and less admirable and fortunate.
However, there is another point about Gallipoli's place in history that is relevant but which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been raised: although it is taken for granted by almost everyone that Gallipoli was a total defeat, this is not necessarily the case.
Certainly it was a tactical defeat, but in strategic terms that is not the last word on the matter.
It is true that it did not achieve its objective, which was to knock Turkey out of the war and relieve the pressure on Russia. A lot of men died to hold a few miles of barren exposed ground for a few months, and the survivors then withdrew.
It was no victory and, as every war college teaches, there is no substitute for victory.
But wait a minute. For the Allies, Gallipoli was a sideshow. Compared with the Western Front, their commitment there was relatively small. For the Turks, on the other hand, it was the supreme effort. For obvious reasons, they gave defence of their homeland priority over campaigns farther afield.
Turkey in 1915, though it had begun making efforts to modernise, was by European standards a very poor country and the Turkish effort at Gallipoli was proportionately much greater than the Allied effort. It was a desperate, all-or-nothing matter.
This supreme effort meant Turkey had no strength to spare to take the offensive in any other theatre. In Palestine and the Middle East, instead of pushing forward and taking the Suez Canal, it was forced to fight a defensive war and was eventually pushed back by small British and Australian forces. The great and valiant Turkish effort at Gallipoli also meant that after the campaign the Turkish army was exhausted. As Lenin said, everything is connected to everything else.
Counterfactuals are not history. But it is worth considering that had Turkish forces not been tied up at Gallipoli, they may have captured the Suez Canal, a vital Allied asset. This would certainly not have been in Australia's interests. They may have also consolidated a hold on the Middle Eastern oil fields, the main oil source for the British fleet.
The Germans, meanwhile, were making efforts to rouse the Muslim world, including the large Muslim population of India, for an anti-British jihad. German propaganda was even claiming the kaiser was descended from the prophet Mohammed. If, instead of barely holding their own, Turkish armies had been on the offensive elsewhere, the idea of a pan-Muslim jihad may have become a lot more plausible and attractive.
Further, while the Germans did not make anything like the same investment in Gallipoli as the Allies, they too were pouring arms and other supplies into Turkey for the campaign. World War I was a war of material, and this German expenditure, although not a good trade from the Allied point of view, was at least a debit on the German side of the ledger: what went to Gallipoli was not available for the decisive battles on the Western Front.
Thus, there is a case that Gallipoli (like, in its way, Vietnam) was by no means totally futile. The Allies tied up enemy forces much greater than their own numbers. I do not suggest the matter is cut and dried. Working out exact relative advantages and disadvantages would be complex and the final verdict one on which historians would probably never agree. But in strategic terms Gallipoli was not necessarily a total loss, and those who died there did not die completely in vain.
But even if it had been a complete and unredeemed disaster, it is still fitting that the Australians and others who fought and died there are honoured and that it should be a place of pilgrimage for their descendants and heirs.
Hal Colebatch is an author.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24591041-7583,00.html
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Gallipoli memory 'utter nonsense'?
Former prime minister Paul Keating has challenged one of the nation's most cherished narratives: that Australia's nationhood was baptised within the Anzac spirit of Gallipoli.Is he right?
Have your say here...
http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/10/gallipoli_memor.html?page=fullpage#comments
Have your say here...
http://blogs.theage.com.au/yoursay/archives/2008/10/gallipoli_memor.html?page=fullpage#comments
Keating 'wrong' on Gallipoli
Leo Shanahan and David Rood
November 1, 2008
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd, Premier John Brumby and author Les Carlyon have all labelled Paul Keating's attack on the role of Gallipoli in Australian history as wrong.
But the former prime minister hit back yesterday, saying Mr Rudd's defence of the Anzacs' role was jingoistic.
At a recent book launch, Mr Keating said that the idea of Gallipoli forging Australian identity was myth with nothing redeeming for the nation coming from it.
"Gallipoli was shocking for us," Mr Keating said. "Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched.
"And none of it in the defence of Australia."
Mr Keating said Australians travelling to sites such as Anzac Cove in Turkey were inspired by this myth. He swore never to visit the area himself.
"We still go on as though the nation was born again or even was redeemed there. This is utter and complete nonsense. For these reasons I have never been to Gallipoli and I never will," he said.
Yesterday Mr Rudd said that Mr Keating was completely wrong in his conclusions.
"This was such a searing national experience at the time and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of brave Australians lost their lives," he said. "That's part of our national consciousness, it's part of our national psyche, it's part of our national identity. And I, for one, as Prime Minister of the country, am absolutely proud of it.
"Yeah, I think Paul is completely wrong on that. Completely and utterly absolutely 100% wrong."
Mr Keating refused to let go of the issue yesterday, claiming it was not a prime minister's job to be jingoistic.
"A political leader's true task is to interpret events and reality to a conscientious nation. It is not to wallow in jingoism in the hope this might find some harmony with an old chord," Mr Keating said.
Mr Brumby was quick to distance himself from the comments, saying Mr Keating was completely out of touch with the community's views.
The former PM got it wrong, he got it badly wrong," Mr Brumby said. "What he said was not consistent with what he said when he was prime minister."
He said he had always maintained there were two defining moments for modern Australia, the Anzacs and the First World War, and post World War II migration.
"These two events, these two phenomenon, have done more to change the course of our history and culture than any other events," Mr Brumby said.
War historian and former editor of The Age Les Carlyon — who has written two seminal books on Australians in World War I, Gallipoli and The Great War — said that the former prime minister's attack was a "mad tangent, what we call a Keatingesque tangent".
Carlyon said it was a shame former ALP speech writer Graham Freudenberg's book had been overshadowed by Mr Keating's speech.
"I think he has got it completely wrong … He ran off the rails because I've never heard anyone say that they were going to Gallipoli because I want to see the place where Australia was redeemed," he said.
Carlyon said that Mr Keating was not in a position to judge a person's motives for travelling to Gallipoli. "Attributing motive to why people go there is taking a hell of a risk.
"Some of the people go there for a dead simple reason: I've come to see my grandfather's grave or I've come to see where my grandfather was, or it's a big piece of Australian history and I've come to see it. People go for all sorts of reasons," he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/keating-wrong-on-gallipoli-20081031-5fkj.html?page=2
November 1, 2008
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd, Premier John Brumby and author Les Carlyon have all labelled Paul Keating's attack on the role of Gallipoli in Australian history as wrong.
But the former prime minister hit back yesterday, saying Mr Rudd's defence of the Anzacs' role was jingoistic.
At a recent book launch, Mr Keating said that the idea of Gallipoli forging Australian identity was myth with nothing redeeming for the nation coming from it.
"Gallipoli was shocking for us," Mr Keating said. "Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched.
"And none of it in the defence of Australia."
Mr Keating said Australians travelling to sites such as Anzac Cove in Turkey were inspired by this myth. He swore never to visit the area himself.
"We still go on as though the nation was born again or even was redeemed there. This is utter and complete nonsense. For these reasons I have never been to Gallipoli and I never will," he said.
Yesterday Mr Rudd said that Mr Keating was completely wrong in his conclusions.
"This was such a searing national experience at the time and thousands upon thousands upon thousands of brave Australians lost their lives," he said. "That's part of our national consciousness, it's part of our national psyche, it's part of our national identity. And I, for one, as Prime Minister of the country, am absolutely proud of it.
"Yeah, I think Paul is completely wrong on that. Completely and utterly absolutely 100% wrong."
Mr Keating refused to let go of the issue yesterday, claiming it was not a prime minister's job to be jingoistic.
"A political leader's true task is to interpret events and reality to a conscientious nation. It is not to wallow in jingoism in the hope this might find some harmony with an old chord," Mr Keating said.
Mr Brumby was quick to distance himself from the comments, saying Mr Keating was completely out of touch with the community's views.
The former PM got it wrong, he got it badly wrong," Mr Brumby said. "What he said was not consistent with what he said when he was prime minister."
He said he had always maintained there were two defining moments for modern Australia, the Anzacs and the First World War, and post World War II migration.
"These two events, these two phenomenon, have done more to change the course of our history and culture than any other events," Mr Brumby said.
War historian and former editor of The Age Les Carlyon — who has written two seminal books on Australians in World War I, Gallipoli and The Great War — said that the former prime minister's attack was a "mad tangent, what we call a Keatingesque tangent".
Carlyon said it was a shame former ALP speech writer Graham Freudenberg's book had been overshadowed by Mr Keating's speech.
"I think he has got it completely wrong … He ran off the rails because I've never heard anyone say that they were going to Gallipoli because I want to see the place where Australia was redeemed," he said.
Carlyon said that Mr Keating was not in a position to judge a person's motives for travelling to Gallipoli. "Attributing motive to why people go there is taking a hell of a risk.
"Some of the people go there for a dead simple reason: I've come to see my grandfather's grave or I've come to see where my grandfather was, or it's a big piece of Australian history and I've come to see it. People go for all sorts of reasons," he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/keating-wrong-on-gallipoli-20081031-5fkj.html?page=2
Rudd, Keating 'at war' over Gallipoli
October 31, 2008 - 10:20AM
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Labor predecessor Paul Keating are fighting a war of words over Australia's war history.
The outspoken former PM sparked the spat on Thursday, when he dismissed as "utter and complete nonsense" the view that Australia was redeemed or born again at Gallipoli in 1915.
Speaking at a book launch, Mr Keating said he had never visited Gallipoli and those who did were misguided.
Mr Rudd took exception to Mr Keating's comments.
"I think Paul is completely wrong on that, completely and utterly, absolutely 100 per cent wrong," he told Fairfax Radio.
Mr Rudd said Gallipoli was a searing national experience in which thousands and thousands of brave Australians lost their lives.
"That is part of our national consciousness. It's part of our national psyche, it is part of our national identity," he said.
"I, for one, as prime minister of the country am absolutely proud of it."
Mr Keating, never one to let someone else have the last word, was quick to retort.
In a statement, Mr Keating criticised Mr Rudd, saying the prime ministership did not automatically invest anyone with wisdom.
"A political leader's true task is to interpret events and reality to a conscientious nation," he said.
"It is not to wallow in jingoism in the hope this might find some harmony with an old chord."
Mr Keating said Mr Rudd could do the country a greater service by taking the long view of history.
"Whether Kevin Rudd decides to give young Australians the appropriate lead or otherwise, they will work it out," he said.
"But what they will most appreciate is some direction for their thinking based on substance and truth and the mature reflection which, in this case, a century of hindsight provides."
http://news.theage.com.au/national/rudd-keating-at-war-over-gallipoli-20081031-5ezt.html
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Labor predecessor Paul Keating are fighting a war of words over Australia's war history.
The outspoken former PM sparked the spat on Thursday, when he dismissed as "utter and complete nonsense" the view that Australia was redeemed or born again at Gallipoli in 1915.
Speaking at a book launch, Mr Keating said he had never visited Gallipoli and those who did were misguided.
Mr Rudd took exception to Mr Keating's comments.
"I think Paul is completely wrong on that, completely and utterly, absolutely 100 per cent wrong," he told Fairfax Radio.
Mr Rudd said Gallipoli was a searing national experience in which thousands and thousands of brave Australians lost their lives.
"That is part of our national consciousness. It's part of our national psyche, it is part of our national identity," he said.
"I, for one, as prime minister of the country am absolutely proud of it."
Mr Keating, never one to let someone else have the last word, was quick to retort.
In a statement, Mr Keating criticised Mr Rudd, saying the prime ministership did not automatically invest anyone with wisdom.
"A political leader's true task is to interpret events and reality to a conscientious nation," he said.
"It is not to wallow in jingoism in the hope this might find some harmony with an old chord."
Mr Keating said Mr Rudd could do the country a greater service by taking the long view of history.
"Whether Kevin Rudd decides to give young Australians the appropriate lead or otherwise, they will work it out," he said.
"But what they will most appreciate is some direction for their thinking based on substance and truth and the mature reflection which, in this case, a century of hindsight provides."
http://news.theage.com.au/national/rudd-keating-at-war-over-gallipoli-20081031-5ezt.html
Misguided Aussies visit Gallipoli: ex-PM
Former prime minister Paul Keating says the motives of Australians who show up at Gallipoli each year for Anzac Day ceremonies are misguided.
Speaking at a book launch in Sydney on Thursday, he said Australia's involvement with the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was divided by loyalties to the British Empire and a desire for a more independent Australia.
"On the one hand we were out to prove that 'the British race in the antipodes had not degenerated', yet we resented being dragooned into a war which did not threaten our own country or its people," Mr Keating said.
Given Australian loyalties to England at the time, Keating said it was entirely understandable that Australia troops fought the Turks at Gallipoli, but the experience was shocking.
"Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly-executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched," he said.
He added he was disappointed some Australians still held the view Australia was redeemed at Gallipoli.
"An utter and complete nonsense," he said.
"Without seeking to simplify the then bonds of the empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there."
Mr Keating said he had never visited Gallipoli, and never would.
© 2008 AAP
http://news.theage.com.au/national/misguided-aussies-visit-gallipoli-expm-20081030-5c4k.html
Speaking at a book launch in Sydney on Thursday, he said Australia's involvement with the Gallipoli campaign of 1915 was divided by loyalties to the British Empire and a desire for a more independent Australia.
"On the one hand we were out to prove that 'the British race in the antipodes had not degenerated', yet we resented being dragooned into a war which did not threaten our own country or its people," Mr Keating said.
Given Australian loyalties to England at the time, Keating said it was entirely understandable that Australia troops fought the Turks at Gallipoli, but the experience was shocking.
"Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly-executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched," he said.
He added he was disappointed some Australians still held the view Australia was redeemed at Gallipoli.
"An utter and complete nonsense," he said.
"Without seeking to simplify the then bonds of the empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there."
Mr Keating said he had never visited Gallipoli, and never would.
© 2008 AAP
http://news.theage.com.au/national/misguided-aussies-visit-gallipoli-expm-20081030-5c4k.html
Gallipoli journey honours neglected soldiers
October 30, 2008
T IS almost a century since Aboriginal teenager Richard Maynard was gunned down in the slaughter at Gallipoli.
The 19-year-old member of the Australian Imperial Force's 5th Battalion was one of hundreds of indigenous Australians — including a large number from his own family — who fought in the Great War for a nation that did not recognise them as citizens.
Stories like Maynard's have inspired a group of Koori teenagers to travel to the Turkish peninsula tomorrow to perform a traditional smoking ceremony on the beach on Remembrance Day.
Officers from Collingwood police station, who will accompany the group, organised the Gallipoli Heroes Project as a way to build ties with indigenous youth and to expose young people deemed at risk of breaking the law to new experiences.
Thornbury High School student Allan "Alboy" Norris, 15, has been researching Maynard and will visit his grave at Beach Cemetery.
MARIKA DOBBIN
http://www.theage.com.au/national/gallipoli-journey-honours-neglected-soldiers-20081029-5bh8.html
T IS almost a century since Aboriginal teenager Richard Maynard was gunned down in the slaughter at Gallipoli.
The 19-year-old member of the Australian Imperial Force's 5th Battalion was one of hundreds of indigenous Australians — including a large number from his own family — who fought in the Great War for a nation that did not recognise them as citizens.
Stories like Maynard's have inspired a group of Koori teenagers to travel to the Turkish peninsula tomorrow to perform a traditional smoking ceremony on the beach on Remembrance Day.
Officers from Collingwood police station, who will accompany the group, organised the Gallipoli Heroes Project as a way to build ties with indigenous youth and to expose young people deemed at risk of breaking the law to new experiences.
Thornbury High School student Allan "Alboy" Norris, 15, has been researching Maynard and will visit his grave at Beach Cemetery.
MARIKA DOBBIN
http://www.theage.com.au/national/gallipoli-journey-honours-neglected-soldiers-20081029-5bh8.html
A nation reborn at Anzac Cove? Utter nonsense: Keating
Tony Wright
October 31, 2008
FORMER prime minister Paul Keating has challenged one of the nation's most cherished narratives: that Australia's nationhood was baptised within the Anzac spirit of Gallipoli.- Book launch controversy- ANZAC legend challenged- 'Never' visit Gallipoli: Keating
Dismissing the idea as "utter and complete nonsense", Mr Keating said he had never been to Gallipoli and "never will".
Utter nonsense? Have your say here.
READ PAUL KEATING'S SPEECH HERE
This puts him at odds with former prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard and former Labor leader Kim Beazley, who have all made moving speeches at Anzac Day ceremonies at Gallipoli in which they placed the 1915 landing there at the heart of the Australian story.
Mr Keating made it clear that he believed the estimated 20,000 Australians who make the pilgrimage to Gallipoli each year were misguided.
Mr Hawke was in South Korea last night and could not be contacted, and efforts to contact both Mr Howard and Mr Beazley also failed.
"Gallipolli was shocking for us," Mr Keating said. "Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched. And none of it in the defence of Australia."
The former prime minister, an avowed republican, challenged the Anzac legend while launching a new book, Churchill and Australia, written by Gough Whitlam's former speechwriter, Graham Freudenberg, who had written of Gallipoli that "in an almost theological sense Australian Britons had been born again into the baptism of fire at Anzac Cove".
Mr Keating said he believed the author was questioning, "somewhat tongue in cheek, whether we needed being reborn at all".
"The 'reborn' part went to a lack of confidence and ambivalence about ourselves — who we were and what we had become," Mr Keating said.
"If our sons suffered and died valiantly in a European war, such sacrifice was testament to the nation's self-worth.
"In some respects we are still at it; not at the suffering and the dying, but still turning up at Gallipoli, the place where Australia was needily redeemed."
Mr Keating said that "without seeking to simplify the then bonds of empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even was redeemed there".
"This is utter and complete nonsense. For these reasons I have never been to Gallipolli and I never will."
Paradoxically, one of Mr Keating's most moving speeches in office was at the return of an unknown soldier from the WWI battlefields, when he declared that in the Anzacs "we have gained a legend: a story of bravery and sacrifice, and with it a deeper faith in ourselves and our democracy, and a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian".
http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-nation-reborn-at-anzac-cove-utter-nonsense-keating-20081030-5enw.html?page=-1
October 31, 2008
FORMER prime minister Paul Keating has challenged one of the nation's most cherished narratives: that Australia's nationhood was baptised within the Anzac spirit of Gallipoli.- Book launch controversy- ANZAC legend challenged- 'Never' visit Gallipoli: Keating
Dismissing the idea as "utter and complete nonsense", Mr Keating said he had never been to Gallipoli and "never will".
Utter nonsense? Have your say here.
READ PAUL KEATING'S SPEECH HERE
This puts him at odds with former prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard and former Labor leader Kim Beazley, who have all made moving speeches at Anzac Day ceremonies at Gallipoli in which they placed the 1915 landing there at the heart of the Australian story.
Mr Keating made it clear that he believed the estimated 20,000 Australians who make the pilgrimage to Gallipoli each year were misguided.
Mr Hawke was in South Korea last night and could not be contacted, and efforts to contact both Mr Howard and Mr Beazley also failed.
"Gallipolli was shocking for us," Mr Keating said. "Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill-conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched. And none of it in the defence of Australia."
The former prime minister, an avowed republican, challenged the Anzac legend while launching a new book, Churchill and Australia, written by Gough Whitlam's former speechwriter, Graham Freudenberg, who had written of Gallipoli that "in an almost theological sense Australian Britons had been born again into the baptism of fire at Anzac Cove".
Mr Keating said he believed the author was questioning, "somewhat tongue in cheek, whether we needed being reborn at all".
"The 'reborn' part went to a lack of confidence and ambivalence about ourselves — who we were and what we had become," Mr Keating said.
"If our sons suffered and died valiantly in a European war, such sacrifice was testament to the nation's self-worth.
"In some respects we are still at it; not at the suffering and the dying, but still turning up at Gallipoli, the place where Australia was needily redeemed."
Mr Keating said that "without seeking to simplify the then bonds of empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even was redeemed there".
"This is utter and complete nonsense. For these reasons I have never been to Gallipolli and I never will."
Paradoxically, one of Mr Keating's most moving speeches in office was at the return of an unknown soldier from the WWI battlefields, when he declared that in the Anzacs "we have gained a legend: a story of bravery and sacrifice, and with it a deeper faith in ourselves and our democracy, and a deeper understanding of what it means to be Australian".
http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-nation-reborn-at-anzac-cove-utter-nonsense-keating-20081030-5enw.html?page=-1
New claims about remains at Gallipoli
October 27, 2008 - 9:32AM
Canberra may seek better communications with Turkish authorities over future roadworks at Gallipoli following another report that human remains were unearthed while a road was upgraded.
The issue first erupted in 2005, ahead of the 90th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing at Anzac Cove, after roadworks were said to have uncovered bone fragments and damaged war relics.
In the latest alleged incident, work to upgrade the Second Ridge Road - located along what was no mans land during the Gallipoli campaign - has unearthed further bone fragments.
Veterans Affairs Minister Alan Griffin has called for an investigation of the latest claims.
The government had been informed by Turkish authorities of resurfacing work that was to begin on Second Ridge Road in late August, and which was completed according to plan.
However, the government believes the fragments have been unearthed and damaged during further work on the roadside verge.
As soon as Australia became aware of the issue, it asked the Turkish authorities to stop the work, which they did.
Mr Griffin said the government had reiterated to Turkish authorities the importance of conducting the works in a sensitive and careful manner.
And the government is looking at whether the current process for alerting Australia to planned roadworks is sufficient.
"I have questioned the process currently in place for notifying the Australian government of roadworks as I believe they may not be sufficient," Mr Griffin said in a statement.
"I will investigate if more formal protocols are required."
Australia and Turkey agreed to discuss all future roadworks at Gallipoli following the furore in 2005.
The roadworks were undertaken to cope with the more than 18,000 visitors who head to Gallipoli each year.
Bill Crews, national president of the Returned and Services League (RSL), told AAP the incident was an unfortunate development.
"But I feel it's being well-managed by the Australian government and the Turkish authorities," he said.
Major-General Crews was unsurprised that remains were uncovered in the area.
"It's unfortunate but perhaps not unexpected that in a sensitive area, where this particular section of road goes through, that remains would be discovered if there was any disturbance of the surface," he said.
"This appears to have happened with a grader operation after the roads were resealed."
© 2008 AAP
http://news.theage.com.au/national/new-claims-about-remains-at-gallipoli-20081027-59a5.html
Canberra may seek better communications with Turkish authorities over future roadworks at Gallipoli following another report that human remains were unearthed while a road was upgraded.
The issue first erupted in 2005, ahead of the 90th anniversary of the Gallipoli landing at Anzac Cove, after roadworks were said to have uncovered bone fragments and damaged war relics.
In the latest alleged incident, work to upgrade the Second Ridge Road - located along what was no mans land during the Gallipoli campaign - has unearthed further bone fragments.
Veterans Affairs Minister Alan Griffin has called for an investigation of the latest claims.
The government had been informed by Turkish authorities of resurfacing work that was to begin on Second Ridge Road in late August, and which was completed according to plan.
However, the government believes the fragments have been unearthed and damaged during further work on the roadside verge.
As soon as Australia became aware of the issue, it asked the Turkish authorities to stop the work, which they did.
Mr Griffin said the government had reiterated to Turkish authorities the importance of conducting the works in a sensitive and careful manner.
And the government is looking at whether the current process for alerting Australia to planned roadworks is sufficient.
"I have questioned the process currently in place for notifying the Australian government of roadworks as I believe they may not be sufficient," Mr Griffin said in a statement.
"I will investigate if more formal protocols are required."
Australia and Turkey agreed to discuss all future roadworks at Gallipoli following the furore in 2005.
The roadworks were undertaken to cope with the more than 18,000 visitors who head to Gallipoli each year.
Bill Crews, national president of the Returned and Services League (RSL), told AAP the incident was an unfortunate development.
"But I feel it's being well-managed by the Australian government and the Turkish authorities," he said.
Major-General Crews was unsurprised that remains were uncovered in the area.
"It's unfortunate but perhaps not unexpected that in a sensitive area, where this particular section of road goes through, that remains would be discovered if there was any disturbance of the surface," he said.
"This appears to have happened with a grader operation after the roads were resealed."
© 2008 AAP
http://news.theage.com.au/national/new-claims-about-remains-at-gallipoli-20081027-59a5.html
Paul Keating's speech on Gallipoli
October 31, 2008
Graham has done me the honour of asking me to launch his book, Churchill and Australia, a request he made of me about a year ago.He has produced a marvellous and important work about the person who, more than any other world leader, was central to Australian fortunes in two world wars: Winston Churchill.
The book, as we might expect, is extensively researched and beautifully written, though its innate beauty arises more from its honest quest for truth than necessarily, its prose.
John Lukacs the American Historian wrote that 'there can be no good history that is not told or written well.’Graham’s Churchill and Australia qualifies in both respects.
Graham’s storylines are long and colourful and crocheted as simply or as complexly as the events they are describing demand. It is enjoyable to see a political storyteller turn his hand, so confidently and so persuasively, to so specialised and yet so grand a narrative.
From the period of our federation through the following half century, Britain was the country with which we were most engaged and its empire was the structure on we which we so fervently relied and rejoiced at inclusion in.We did not know and could not have known that the Edwardian period was to be the zenith of Britain’s long international history and that the First World War effectively ended its primacy in the world.
Nor could we have known that the seeds of the Second World War had been sown in the settlement of the first and that the second conflagration would involve us as comprehensively as had the first. And that one person, above all others, would be common to the events of both epochs and to the fortunes of Australia and Australians; that person, of course; the subject of Graham’s book; Winston Churchill.
Graham pretty well sums up Churchill and his view of Australia at the opening of his book, in its prologue, and at its closing, at its last page. In the prologue he says 'Churchill’s involvement with Australia, unparalleled by any other British leader, covered and influenced every stage of our transition from a dependent colony of the British Empire to a dependent ally of the United States. From beginning to end his primary interest in Australia lay in its capacity to contribute to Britain’s military strength on which he believed everything else depended. 'And at the last page Graham writes'Incomparably, Winston Churchill thought more about Australia and more about what Australia thought of him than any world leader before or since, or ever will again.’Churchill had spoken of his 'solemn responsibility to the Australian people’.
Graham asks 'which foreign president or prime minister will ever write 'my solemn responsibility to the Australian people’, with half so good a will as Churchill did?’ And he goes on to say that in the disputes with Curtin in 1942 'the essential difference between Churchill and Roosevelt was that Churchill genuinely believed that Australian interests, however waywardly he interpreted them, counted for something in the common cause [whereas] Roosevelt did not.’Graham approvingly quotes Menzies as saying 'as for all of Churchill’s ambivalence and contradictions, none was as great and powerful a friend as he was.’ To which Graham adds 'we shall not look upon his like again.’These are not the words or the sentiment of a snarling nationalist, unable or unwilling to recognise the integrity of a man set against the backdrop of his own times and history.
To say that Graham Freudenberg has been fair to Churchill in this analysis of his relationship with Australia would be to way understate the decency and objectivity with which he has treated him.Graham’s motivation for his early and express invitation to me to launch this important work, only became apparent to me as I started to read my way through his book. I think he wanted me to know, that even through the prism of Australia, his ambivalence towards Churchill did not blind him to Churchill’s greatness.
The same view that I have long held about Churchill myself.I have said on many occasions, unlikely as it might be for a Labor person to say, that the inspiration for my entry into public life, and into the Labor Party itself, came from Churchill. Nominally, a classic Edwardian and a British conservative. But as we know, more than that.I was attracted to him for his braveness, sense of adventure, compulsion and moral clarity.
That at the most important moment of his political life and probably in Britain’s history, upon assuming the prime ministership, he was being prevailed upon by his Conservative Party benefactors, to trade with Hitler.
More than that, to keep the prime ministership, he would be expected to trade with Hitler. And his resounding 'no’ to that demand turned out to be the fatal spike in Hitler’s scheme of tyranny, leading as it did, to the salvation of Western Europe.As Graham says 'Churchill’s rejection of the devil’s bargain is his eternal greatness.’
He makes the point, correctly, that 'Hitler wanted to recruit the British Empire as his accomplice to his criminality on a world wide scale.’A lesser political figure would have gone along with his party and the establishment he belonged to. Hitler had held out the prospect of Britain retaining sovereignty over its islands and its empire, without military conflict, an outcome appealing to Britain’s upper class, including, as we now know, the then Queen.As Graham notes, Churchill’s strategy never varied.
It was, that if Britain held control of its island, that if the moat of the English Channel and the North Sea could be reinforced and maintained, then Hitler could never win his war. And that the principal role of Australia in that strategy, was to militarily reinforce Britain.If any one of us were to occupy the prime ministership of Britain in May 1940, with the British army holed up in Calais and Dunkirk waiting upon Hitler’s death blow, with France capitulating and the Dutch queen seeking refuge in London, would it be unreasonable to worry about reinforcements?By that stage, of course, the matter had became tribal, leaving scant place in Churchill’s mind for niceties as to the views of the so-called dominions. We should remember this was over two years before Japan had showed its hand in the Pacific.For all that, the two most obvious Australian strikes against Churchill remain Gallipoli and his 1942 disagreement with Curtin as to the defence of Australia.
To that we may add his promise of protection by strength of the fortress of Singapore.
Graham writes that 'no event in Australian history is more closely associated with Churchill, with praise or blame, than the Gallipoli campaign of 1915.’On all the evidence since, I think it is reasonable to say that Churchill did overcook the arguments in favour of a naval and infantry campaign against Turkey in the Dardanelles Straits, with the object of control of Constantinople, the modern Istanbul.
It is even worth arguing, as Graham argues, that Churchill drove the Turks into the arms of the Germans when he requisitioned and seized control of the two dreadnought battleships which the Turks had ordered from British yards and had already paid for.Indeed, it may even have been that a phalanx of British battleships both old and new was unable to take out the Turkish forts. It was certainly true that control of the Gallipoli peninsula was not capable of realisation without infantry and that the Turks had been put on red alert when Britain had earlier tried to mine the mouth of the Dardanelles.
But Graham makes this powerful point:'Asquith was the cleverest prime minister of the twentieth century. Kitchener was hailed as the greatest British soldier since the Duke of Wellington and Lord Fisher the greatest British seaman since Lord Nelson. Churchill became the greatest war time prime minister in British history. [And that] between them, they produced Gallipoli.’They did produce Gallipoli.
But with the Western Front in a quagmire and standstill and given Australian loyalties to 'king and country’, it was entirely explicable that we would be there to help, including at Gallipoli.So our motivations were, as Graham notes, divided by nationalism and imperialism; between loyalties to the empire and a desire for a more independent Australia.
Importantly, he suggests that 'Churchill’s ambivalence about Australia was a mirror image of Australia’s ambivalence about itself.’On the one hand we were out to prove that 'the British race in the antipodes had not degenerated’ yet we resented being dragooned into a war which did not threaten our own country or its people.
As Graham says 'in an almost theological sense Australian Britons had been born again into the baptism of fire at Anzac Cove’, questioning, somewhat tongue in cheek, whether we needed being reborn at all.The 'reborn’ part went to a lack of confidence and ambivalence about ourselves. Who we were and what we had become. If our sons suffered and died valiantly in a European war, such sacrifice was testament to the nation’s self worth.In some respects we are still at it; not at the suffering and the dying, but still turning up at Gallipoli, the place where Australia was needily redeemed?The truth is that Gallipoli was shocking for us. Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched.And none of it in the defence of Australia. Without seeking to simplify the then bonds of empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there. An utter and complete nonsense.For these reasons I have never been to Gallipoli and I never will.One of the most powerful parts of the book goes to what Graham calls Churchill’s overheated reaction to Curtin’s 'looking to America’ message of January 1942. Graham contends that this episode distorted Churchill’s relationship with Australia for the rest of the war and beyond. He says 'the root of the trouble lay in an irreconcilable outlook’; namely, 'Curtin could never accept that Australia’s fate must be completely subordinated to Churchill’s grand strategy.’ And that he stung Churchill by saying 'we know that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on.’ Graham writes that the sting came from the fact that Churchill knew in his heart that 'not only was this true, but that his own policy had made it true.’
In his Second World War history, Churchill wrote that the Australian government had a duty to 'study their own position with concentrated attention’ but he said, 'we had to try to think for all’ while 'observing a true sense of proportion in world strategy’.
In other words, the grand strategy warranted primacy notwithstanding the seriousness of the parochial peril.On 26 January 1942, in a public address on Australia Day, Graham records that Curtin said, amongst other things, in a public address on Australia Day, that 'no single nation can afford to risk its future on the infallibility of one man and no nation can afford to submerge its right to speak for itself because of the perceived omniscience of another.’
There were no marks for guessing who the one man was.But what really got Churchill’s goat was Curtin writing to him about arrangements being worked out between Roosevelt and Churchill and their military chiefs. Curtin told Churchill that Australia had been left in the cold and that 'our chiefs of staff are unable to see anything in these proposals except the endangering of our safety.’Curtin communicated to Roosevelt, as Graham records, three seminal paragraphs which changed the course of Australian foreign policy.'Without inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.'We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the constant threat of invasion. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know, too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on.'We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go and we shall exert all our energies towards shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy.’Graham wrote that, 'the Greatest Living Englishman left no doubt about his own thinking: 'I hope there will be no pandering to this,’ he cabled Clement Attlee, 'while at the same time we do all in human power to come to their aid.’
To Lord Cranborne, he categorised the articles as 'misbehaviour’. He claimed in his memoirs that Curtin’s article had been 'flaunted round the world by our enemies’.Graham’s extract on this episode is probably the best of any in the book. He writes'Curtin’s offence was compounded by its timing. Churchill saw it as an impertinent intervention by a colonial politician who did not truly represent his own country. In his eyes, everything was wrong about the message: a gift to German and Japanese propaganda; a challenge to his political position in Britain; yet another Australian attempt to seat itself in the British war cabinet and now a bid for the Anglo-American high table; an unwarranted assertion of Australian independence; a weakening of the unity of the empire; an ill-timed exposure of the bankruptcy of three decades of British Far Eastern strategy; an affront to his honour as the man who had given his pledged word about the rescue of the kith and kin; an insult to the efforts that even now he was making on their behalf; a competitive bid for American aid; a threat to the 'beat Hitler first’ strategy; and an infringement of his monopoly with Roosevelt as the voice of the Empire.’
For all of Churchill’s undertakings, Curtin knew the Singapore guarantees, though conscientiously given and solemnly meant, were either unenforceable or rapidly becoming unenforceable .Over Christmas 1941, he made the historic turn to the United States, forsaking the covenants of Empire. For the first time, he lifted Australia’s interests beyond the general, to their appropriate point of primacy. A history of these subjects and of this kind needed to be written. Of its essence, Graham Freudenberg’s book is a history of Australia’s relationship with Britain during the Imperial period.In some ways, Graham has employed Churchill as a prop to tell a wider story of the two nations.But Australia’s relationship with Winston Churchill, for good or for ill, is one of the defining aspects of Australian history; especially as it related to our involvement in the two world wars.The Imperial period, covering the first half of the twentieth century was the time when what happened in the British Foreign and Dominions office set the scene for policy in Australia. Those days are now well over.These days Australia makes its own foreign policy. No longer do we subscribe to the Richard Casey view that 'the foreign policy of Great Britain is the foreign policy of Australia.’The key point being that it is incumbent upon us to construct a foreign policy in our own interests.
And just as the twentieth century was the British century for Australia, we should not allow the twenty first century to be our American century, notwithstanding the flying start John Howard made for us in respect of the latter.
People may say, well, of course that is now the case. Yet Graham makes a telling point in the book, indeed an exceptional one, when he reminds us that Australia declared war on Japan before Britain declared war on Japan.
Where before, according to form, we would have otherwise tagged along. And, as it turned out, upon that declaration, Prime Minister Curtin wrote to the King instructing him that his Australian ministers had declared war on Japan and that acting on the advice of his ministers, the King was also at war with Japan.
That was, the King of Great Britain, George VI.This would be akin to the Australian government of today declaring war on another state and advising the Queen of Australia, also the Queen of Great Britain, that she too, on the advice of her ministers, was at war with that country.
Underlining again, if it needs underlining, that the earlier our head of state has interests entirely coincident with our own, the better it will be for us and Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors etc, as well.Churchill was, as the historian John Lukacs said, 'uncharacterisable’. He said most of the political establishment distrusted him because he was the kind of person whom mediocrities instinctively fear.
A biographer, Roy Jenkins, wrote that Churchill’s aristocratic background never governed his career. 'Churchill was too many-faceted, idiosyncratic and unpredictable a character to allow himself to be imprisoned by the circumstances of his birth.’ In an entirely different setting, I should say 'hear hear’ to that.But there is another side to Churchill, an important one worth making reference to: his magnanimity.Churchill could be overbearing, truculent and even petty but never mean. That good mind was also a fair one.His fight with Curtin was about his management of the war and his priorities; it was in no way about punishing or ostracising Australia.Indeed, immediately after the war he was advocating the cause of a united Germany. In 1946 he was promoting reconciliation between France and Germany. In the same year at Fulton in Missouri he was decrying the division and the isolation of the East European states.In the early 1950s, as the Cold War got going in earnest, he was arguing a place for the Soviet Union in the new world order, including a place for it in Europe.
In 1948, in a famous speech given at The Hague, he advocated a European Union Congress to provide political and functional unity to Europe.He could have been excused for thinking that after six years of punishing conflict with Germany and Britain’s chance victory, that he should have been all defensive and recriminatory. But not him. His magnanimity and judgment frogmarched him on to even more expansive campaigns.
As Graham says, we shall not look upon the likes of him again.Principally, he had the temperament of an artist, from which sprang his boundless imagination.Leadership, after all, is as I have so often remarked, about two things: imagination and courage.
The imagination to see the bigger picture, to make sense of it and to imagine something better; and having the courage to see the changes through.
Churchill had these qualities in spades.As he said, as a young minister, to Asquith’s daughter, Violet Bonham Carter, musing over things after a dinner, 'you know Violet, in the end, we are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow worm.’ He was a glow worm and he lit up the most miserable epoch of the miserable twentieth century like no one before or after him.I congratulate Graham on his book, for undertaking such a huge task, 600 pages, and for fulfilling it with such commitment and élan.
Let me also thank the publisher, Macmillan, for encouraging and publishing such an important work.
It is my very great honour to launch Churchill and Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/paul-keatings-speech-20081031-5f1h.html
Graham has done me the honour of asking me to launch his book, Churchill and Australia, a request he made of me about a year ago.He has produced a marvellous and important work about the person who, more than any other world leader, was central to Australian fortunes in two world wars: Winston Churchill.
The book, as we might expect, is extensively researched and beautifully written, though its innate beauty arises more from its honest quest for truth than necessarily, its prose.
John Lukacs the American Historian wrote that 'there can be no good history that is not told or written well.’Graham’s Churchill and Australia qualifies in both respects.
Graham’s storylines are long and colourful and crocheted as simply or as complexly as the events they are describing demand. It is enjoyable to see a political storyteller turn his hand, so confidently and so persuasively, to so specialised and yet so grand a narrative.
From the period of our federation through the following half century, Britain was the country with which we were most engaged and its empire was the structure on we which we so fervently relied and rejoiced at inclusion in.We did not know and could not have known that the Edwardian period was to be the zenith of Britain’s long international history and that the First World War effectively ended its primacy in the world.
Nor could we have known that the seeds of the Second World War had been sown in the settlement of the first and that the second conflagration would involve us as comprehensively as had the first. And that one person, above all others, would be common to the events of both epochs and to the fortunes of Australia and Australians; that person, of course; the subject of Graham’s book; Winston Churchill.
Graham pretty well sums up Churchill and his view of Australia at the opening of his book, in its prologue, and at its closing, at its last page. In the prologue he says 'Churchill’s involvement with Australia, unparalleled by any other British leader, covered and influenced every stage of our transition from a dependent colony of the British Empire to a dependent ally of the United States. From beginning to end his primary interest in Australia lay in its capacity to contribute to Britain’s military strength on which he believed everything else depended. 'And at the last page Graham writes'Incomparably, Winston Churchill thought more about Australia and more about what Australia thought of him than any world leader before or since, or ever will again.’Churchill had spoken of his 'solemn responsibility to the Australian people’.
Graham asks 'which foreign president or prime minister will ever write 'my solemn responsibility to the Australian people’, with half so good a will as Churchill did?’ And he goes on to say that in the disputes with Curtin in 1942 'the essential difference between Churchill and Roosevelt was that Churchill genuinely believed that Australian interests, however waywardly he interpreted them, counted for something in the common cause [whereas] Roosevelt did not.’Graham approvingly quotes Menzies as saying 'as for all of Churchill’s ambivalence and contradictions, none was as great and powerful a friend as he was.’ To which Graham adds 'we shall not look upon his like again.’These are not the words or the sentiment of a snarling nationalist, unable or unwilling to recognise the integrity of a man set against the backdrop of his own times and history.
To say that Graham Freudenberg has been fair to Churchill in this analysis of his relationship with Australia would be to way understate the decency and objectivity with which he has treated him.Graham’s motivation for his early and express invitation to me to launch this important work, only became apparent to me as I started to read my way through his book. I think he wanted me to know, that even through the prism of Australia, his ambivalence towards Churchill did not blind him to Churchill’s greatness.
The same view that I have long held about Churchill myself.I have said on many occasions, unlikely as it might be for a Labor person to say, that the inspiration for my entry into public life, and into the Labor Party itself, came from Churchill. Nominally, a classic Edwardian and a British conservative. But as we know, more than that.I was attracted to him for his braveness, sense of adventure, compulsion and moral clarity.
That at the most important moment of his political life and probably in Britain’s history, upon assuming the prime ministership, he was being prevailed upon by his Conservative Party benefactors, to trade with Hitler.
More than that, to keep the prime ministership, he would be expected to trade with Hitler. And his resounding 'no’ to that demand turned out to be the fatal spike in Hitler’s scheme of tyranny, leading as it did, to the salvation of Western Europe.As Graham says 'Churchill’s rejection of the devil’s bargain is his eternal greatness.’
He makes the point, correctly, that 'Hitler wanted to recruit the British Empire as his accomplice to his criminality on a world wide scale.’A lesser political figure would have gone along with his party and the establishment he belonged to. Hitler had held out the prospect of Britain retaining sovereignty over its islands and its empire, without military conflict, an outcome appealing to Britain’s upper class, including, as we now know, the then Queen.As Graham notes, Churchill’s strategy never varied.
It was, that if Britain held control of its island, that if the moat of the English Channel and the North Sea could be reinforced and maintained, then Hitler could never win his war. And that the principal role of Australia in that strategy, was to militarily reinforce Britain.If any one of us were to occupy the prime ministership of Britain in May 1940, with the British army holed up in Calais and Dunkirk waiting upon Hitler’s death blow, with France capitulating and the Dutch queen seeking refuge in London, would it be unreasonable to worry about reinforcements?By that stage, of course, the matter had became tribal, leaving scant place in Churchill’s mind for niceties as to the views of the so-called dominions. We should remember this was over two years before Japan had showed its hand in the Pacific.For all that, the two most obvious Australian strikes against Churchill remain Gallipoli and his 1942 disagreement with Curtin as to the defence of Australia.
To that we may add his promise of protection by strength of the fortress of Singapore.
Graham writes that 'no event in Australian history is more closely associated with Churchill, with praise or blame, than the Gallipoli campaign of 1915.’On all the evidence since, I think it is reasonable to say that Churchill did overcook the arguments in favour of a naval and infantry campaign against Turkey in the Dardanelles Straits, with the object of control of Constantinople, the modern Istanbul.
It is even worth arguing, as Graham argues, that Churchill drove the Turks into the arms of the Germans when he requisitioned and seized control of the two dreadnought battleships which the Turks had ordered from British yards and had already paid for.Indeed, it may even have been that a phalanx of British battleships both old and new was unable to take out the Turkish forts. It was certainly true that control of the Gallipoli peninsula was not capable of realisation without infantry and that the Turks had been put on red alert when Britain had earlier tried to mine the mouth of the Dardanelles.
But Graham makes this powerful point:'Asquith was the cleverest prime minister of the twentieth century. Kitchener was hailed as the greatest British soldier since the Duke of Wellington and Lord Fisher the greatest British seaman since Lord Nelson. Churchill became the greatest war time prime minister in British history. [And that] between them, they produced Gallipoli.’They did produce Gallipoli.
But with the Western Front in a quagmire and standstill and given Australian loyalties to 'king and country’, it was entirely explicable that we would be there to help, including at Gallipoli.So our motivations were, as Graham notes, divided by nationalism and imperialism; between loyalties to the empire and a desire for a more independent Australia.
Importantly, he suggests that 'Churchill’s ambivalence about Australia was a mirror image of Australia’s ambivalence about itself.’On the one hand we were out to prove that 'the British race in the antipodes had not degenerated’ yet we resented being dragooned into a war which did not threaten our own country or its people.
As Graham says 'in an almost theological sense Australian Britons had been born again into the baptism of fire at Anzac Cove’, questioning, somewhat tongue in cheek, whether we needed being reborn at all.The 'reborn’ part went to a lack of confidence and ambivalence about ourselves. Who we were and what we had become. If our sons suffered and died valiantly in a European war, such sacrifice was testament to the nation’s self worth.In some respects we are still at it; not at the suffering and the dying, but still turning up at Gallipoli, the place where Australia was needily redeemed?The truth is that Gallipoli was shocking for us. Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched.And none of it in the defence of Australia. Without seeking to simplify the then bonds of empire and the implicit sense of obligation, or to diminish the bravery of our own men, we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there. An utter and complete nonsense.For these reasons I have never been to Gallipoli and I never will.One of the most powerful parts of the book goes to what Graham calls Churchill’s overheated reaction to Curtin’s 'looking to America’ message of January 1942. Graham contends that this episode distorted Churchill’s relationship with Australia for the rest of the war and beyond. He says 'the root of the trouble lay in an irreconcilable outlook’; namely, 'Curtin could never accept that Australia’s fate must be completely subordinated to Churchill’s grand strategy.’ And that he stung Churchill by saying 'we know that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on.’ Graham writes that the sting came from the fact that Churchill knew in his heart that 'not only was this true, but that his own policy had made it true.’
In his Second World War history, Churchill wrote that the Australian government had a duty to 'study their own position with concentrated attention’ but he said, 'we had to try to think for all’ while 'observing a true sense of proportion in world strategy’.
In other words, the grand strategy warranted primacy notwithstanding the seriousness of the parochial peril.On 26 January 1942, in a public address on Australia Day, Graham records that Curtin said, amongst other things, in a public address on Australia Day, that 'no single nation can afford to risk its future on the infallibility of one man and no nation can afford to submerge its right to speak for itself because of the perceived omniscience of another.’
There were no marks for guessing who the one man was.But what really got Churchill’s goat was Curtin writing to him about arrangements being worked out between Roosevelt and Churchill and their military chiefs. Curtin told Churchill that Australia had been left in the cold and that 'our chiefs of staff are unable to see anything in these proposals except the endangering of our safety.’Curtin communicated to Roosevelt, as Graham records, three seminal paragraphs which changed the course of Australian foreign policy.'Without inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.'We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the constant threat of invasion. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know, too, that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on.'We are, therefore, determined that Australia shall not go and we shall exert all our energies towards shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone, which will give our country some confidence of being able to hold out until the tide of battle swings against the enemy.’Graham wrote that, 'the Greatest Living Englishman left no doubt about his own thinking: 'I hope there will be no pandering to this,’ he cabled Clement Attlee, 'while at the same time we do all in human power to come to their aid.’
To Lord Cranborne, he categorised the articles as 'misbehaviour’. He claimed in his memoirs that Curtin’s article had been 'flaunted round the world by our enemies’.Graham’s extract on this episode is probably the best of any in the book. He writes'Curtin’s offence was compounded by its timing. Churchill saw it as an impertinent intervention by a colonial politician who did not truly represent his own country. In his eyes, everything was wrong about the message: a gift to German and Japanese propaganda; a challenge to his political position in Britain; yet another Australian attempt to seat itself in the British war cabinet and now a bid for the Anglo-American high table; an unwarranted assertion of Australian independence; a weakening of the unity of the empire; an ill-timed exposure of the bankruptcy of three decades of British Far Eastern strategy; an affront to his honour as the man who had given his pledged word about the rescue of the kith and kin; an insult to the efforts that even now he was making on their behalf; a competitive bid for American aid; a threat to the 'beat Hitler first’ strategy; and an infringement of his monopoly with Roosevelt as the voice of the Empire.’
For all of Churchill’s undertakings, Curtin knew the Singapore guarantees, though conscientiously given and solemnly meant, were either unenforceable or rapidly becoming unenforceable .Over Christmas 1941, he made the historic turn to the United States, forsaking the covenants of Empire. For the first time, he lifted Australia’s interests beyond the general, to their appropriate point of primacy. A history of these subjects and of this kind needed to be written. Of its essence, Graham Freudenberg’s book is a history of Australia’s relationship with Britain during the Imperial period.In some ways, Graham has employed Churchill as a prop to tell a wider story of the two nations.But Australia’s relationship with Winston Churchill, for good or for ill, is one of the defining aspects of Australian history; especially as it related to our involvement in the two world wars.The Imperial period, covering the first half of the twentieth century was the time when what happened in the British Foreign and Dominions office set the scene for policy in Australia. Those days are now well over.These days Australia makes its own foreign policy. No longer do we subscribe to the Richard Casey view that 'the foreign policy of Great Britain is the foreign policy of Australia.’The key point being that it is incumbent upon us to construct a foreign policy in our own interests.
And just as the twentieth century was the British century for Australia, we should not allow the twenty first century to be our American century, notwithstanding the flying start John Howard made for us in respect of the latter.
People may say, well, of course that is now the case. Yet Graham makes a telling point in the book, indeed an exceptional one, when he reminds us that Australia declared war on Japan before Britain declared war on Japan.
Where before, according to form, we would have otherwise tagged along. And, as it turned out, upon that declaration, Prime Minister Curtin wrote to the King instructing him that his Australian ministers had declared war on Japan and that acting on the advice of his ministers, the King was also at war with Japan.
That was, the King of Great Britain, George VI.This would be akin to the Australian government of today declaring war on another state and advising the Queen of Australia, also the Queen of Great Britain, that she too, on the advice of her ministers, was at war with that country.
Underlining again, if it needs underlining, that the earlier our head of state has interests entirely coincident with our own, the better it will be for us and Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors etc, as well.Churchill was, as the historian John Lukacs said, 'uncharacterisable’. He said most of the political establishment distrusted him because he was the kind of person whom mediocrities instinctively fear.
A biographer, Roy Jenkins, wrote that Churchill’s aristocratic background never governed his career. 'Churchill was too many-faceted, idiosyncratic and unpredictable a character to allow himself to be imprisoned by the circumstances of his birth.’ In an entirely different setting, I should say 'hear hear’ to that.But there is another side to Churchill, an important one worth making reference to: his magnanimity.Churchill could be overbearing, truculent and even petty but never mean. That good mind was also a fair one.His fight with Curtin was about his management of the war and his priorities; it was in no way about punishing or ostracising Australia.Indeed, immediately after the war he was advocating the cause of a united Germany. In 1946 he was promoting reconciliation between France and Germany. In the same year at Fulton in Missouri he was decrying the division and the isolation of the East European states.In the early 1950s, as the Cold War got going in earnest, he was arguing a place for the Soviet Union in the new world order, including a place for it in Europe.
In 1948, in a famous speech given at The Hague, he advocated a European Union Congress to provide political and functional unity to Europe.He could have been excused for thinking that after six years of punishing conflict with Germany and Britain’s chance victory, that he should have been all defensive and recriminatory. But not him. His magnanimity and judgment frogmarched him on to even more expansive campaigns.
As Graham says, we shall not look upon the likes of him again.Principally, he had the temperament of an artist, from which sprang his boundless imagination.Leadership, after all, is as I have so often remarked, about two things: imagination and courage.
The imagination to see the bigger picture, to make sense of it and to imagine something better; and having the courage to see the changes through.
Churchill had these qualities in spades.As he said, as a young minister, to Asquith’s daughter, Violet Bonham Carter, musing over things after a dinner, 'you know Violet, in the end, we are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow worm.’ He was a glow worm and he lit up the most miserable epoch of the miserable twentieth century like no one before or after him.I congratulate Graham on his book, for undertaking such a huge task, 600 pages, and for fulfilling it with such commitment and élan.
Let me also thank the publisher, Macmillan, for encouraging and publishing such an important work.
It is my very great honour to launch Churchill and Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/paul-keatings-speech-20081031-5f1h.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![About Us [ Australia Gallipoli Friendship Society Inc.]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-y5YF5-gTQyHubWgWc4bj5IGQgFniZCPlsyqlLRP9QvWmj7QjjKlWmkVrrSrh1w8qskOD68tyOP-myxEUQmoRR3KwVqUaAaYLz_U0-ZgcfFuMTzzBMEgXNU3mrptZt8AknWvzkBxAQGoj/s1600-r/anzacday2008.jpg)
