Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2006/16: Should only Australian veterans take part in the Anzac Day march?

Related issue outlines?:
1996/97: Should children be allowed to take part in the Anzac Day march?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items specifically on this subsject: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2006 file) and enter the following word.

anzac
march



Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Online newspaper items: see the end of this outline (after the list of newspaper sources) for a google search facility with which to attempt to access newspaper items still online or cached by third parties.


What they said ...
'If there is a truth in this march, it is in saluting the sacrifice of the veterans, a badge of honour that is earned by direct experience. It can't be inherited'
Jonathan Green, who took part in the 2006 Anzac Day march as the descendent of a World War I veteran

'Already, in many country towns, there are no world war veterans left and there are just kids and descendants marching. We have to encourage that or one day no one will march at all'
The NSW RSL president, Don Rowe, a Vietnam veteran

The issue at a glance
The 2006 Anzac Day commemoration saw a continuation of the controversy over who should participate in the march. For the last three years the descendants of World War I veterans have been formally allowed to take part in the march, formalising a practice which has occurred over many years.
This has not satisfied many within the veteran community. The Victorian RSL has sought this year to impose standards of dress and behaviour on those non-veterans who participate in the march. Some members of the Victorian RSL were particularly dissatisfied with the dress of those who participated in the march last year. The Rats of Tobruk Association has called for the descendants of veterans to no longer be allowed to march. There have also been attempts to prevent descendants carrying photographs of their dead ancestors in the march.
In contrast, Don Rowe, the NSW RSL president has announced that the descendants of World War II veterans will be encouraged to march as an official group in Sydney next year. A similarly more inclusive attitude appears to prevail in Queensland.
Turkish veterans have been able to participate in the march for ten years. This is not true for the veterans of other nations against whom Australia has fought. Italian veterans, now living in Australia, would like to be able to participate.
The issue has not met with a uniform response for the federal government. The Prime Minister, though he has claimed to have some sympathies with those on both sides of the debate, stated that he ultimately concurred with those who wished to see the march limited to Australian veterans. However, the federal Minister for Veterans Affairs, Bruce Billson, asked veterans groups to reconsider the ban on carrying photos in marches.

Background
Anzac Day was originally established as a means of honouring Australian soldiers who had died in war. The day is a public holiday and is traditionally marked by a dawn service, a march through the streets of returned service men and women and a wreath-laying ceremony at shrines of remembrance.
The term ANZAC derives from the title Australian and New Zealand Army Corps and refers to those combined Australian and New Zealand forces who fought on behalf of Britain in World War I. Their first major military encounter was at Gallipoli against the Turks and alongside the British Empire Army.
April 25, 1915, was the day the ANZACs landed on the beaches of Gallipoli and this has become the day on which Australia honours its war dead.

Anzac Day timeline
(Most of the information given below comes from Activity 7, www.anzacday.org.au)

In 1916 the first commemoration of Anzac Day took place.
In the 1920s almost every town and suburb in Australia erected its World War I memorial.
In 1925 Anzac Day was declared a public holiday in Victoria.
In 1927 all states accepted Anzac Day as a uniform national day.
In 1942 Anzac Day was first commemorated at the Australian War Memorial, but due to government orders preventing large public gatherings in case of Japanese air attack, it was a small affair and there was neither a march nor a memorial service.
1946 saw the biggest of the Melbourne marches, when men and women returning from World War II joined veterans of the Great War to march 20 abreast towards the Shrine.
In 1965 Australians commemorated the 50th anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli as a nation divided over Australia's military commitment in Vietnam.
In 1969, 3500 gathered in Melbourne by the Shrine at dawn. Only 14,500 regrouped later in the morning to march.
The 1960s and 1970s saw the growth of a large anti-war movement which condemned Anzac Day as a glorification of war.
The 1980s and 1990s saw a massive increase in the number of schools studying World War I. At the same time there was a growth of interest in genealogy, with many Australians tracing Anzac ancestors.
In 1987 Vietnam veterans marched in the 'Welcome Home' parade in Sydney, before huge and cheering crowds.
In 1990 there were huge crowds at Gallipoli and at marches in Australia on the 75th anniversary of the landing.
In 1996 Turkish veterans took part for the first time in the Anzac Day march, an acknowledgement of the special relationship between Turkish and Australian veterans.
In 2003 descendants of veterans were formally allowed to take part in the march.

Internet information
The Australian War Memorial has a section of its site given over to Anzac Day. This section of the site gives information on the history of the day, why it has remained so important to contemporary Australians, the dawn service and the main features of the various commemorative ceremonies.
This information can be found at http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.htm
and at http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/

The Australian Government's Cultural and Recreation Portal also has a section devoted to Anzac Day, giving information on the original Gallipoli campaign as well as commentaries by a number of historians on the place of the Anzac legend within the Australian tradition. This information can be found at http://www.acn.net.au/articles/anzac/

The Australian Government's Department of Veterans' Affairs also has a section of its site given over to Anzac Day. It also deals with the significance of the day, the dawn service and the Gallipoli campaign. It links with a number of education sites.
This information can be found at http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/anzac/

Arguments in favour of only Australian veterans taking part in Anzac Day marches
1. Allowing the combatants of other nations to march could re-kindle old animosities
The Victorian branch of the RSL has allowed the descendants of Turkish World War I veterans to take part in the Anzac Day march to the Shrine for over a decade. However, the move has distressed some and led to discussion about whether other former enemies should also be allowed to march.
The general consensus is that enemy veterans should not take part in the march as Australia's veterans and others are far from having forgiven many of those against whom they have fought. This appears to be especially true of both the Germans and the Japanese, whose wartime conduct is felt to have been particularly inhumane.
The Victorian RSL president, Major-General David McLachlan, has noted that the wounds of Japan's brutal conquest of South-East Asia in 1942 have been slow to heal - especially given the wholesale atrocities against Australian and other Allied prisoners of war. 'They were a dreaded enemy that was despised by Australian veterans,' Major-General McLachlan has said. Japanese veterans, he has added, would continue to be unwelcome on Anzac Day.

2. The descendents of those who fought have not earned the entitlement to march
It is argued that only those who have actually fought have the right to march. The Anzac Day march began as a commemoration of the sacrifices of those who fought in war. Those who first took part in the march were veterans, honouring their fellow soldiers. Many veterans and some of their descendants claim that the original tradition should be respected.
In an opinion piece published in The Age on April 26, 2006, Jonathan Green, the descendent of a World War I veteran (who this year took part in the Anzac day march) wrote, 'It began in 1916, when 400 or so soldiers, most wounded and recovering, marched - hobbled - from a marshalling point near Princes Bridge to attend a service at St Paul's ... What sacrifice had I made that these people should show such open gratitude and affection? None. Nothing. I was only here through accident of birth. A sense of hot shame grew as we made our way slowly towards the Shrine. The clapping followed us, relentless like a lapping wave. I couldn't meet their eyes. I wanted to veer right, leave the march and lose myself in the trees of Kings Domain. If there is a truth in this march, it is in saluting the sacrifice of the veterans, a badge of honour that is earned by direct experience. It can't be inherited ... leave the march of thankful triumph to the men and women who also marched away in fear and hope.'

3. Allowing those who have not fought to march may result in the glorification of war
There are those who are concerned that if the descendents of veterans are allowed to march they may do so without recognising the horrors of war. The Anzac Day march could, it is feared, become a means of promoting the supposed glories of war, rather than honouring the sacrifices of those who took part in it.
The Age, in its editorial of April 25, 2006, noted, 'It is disturbing whenever politicians seek to exploit Anzac Day and its themes of mateship, courage and sacrifice in ways that risk encouraging the very jingoism that has led nations to march unthinkingly into wars before. Anzac Day should not be used for this end. On this day, the veterans' attitude is instructive. Those who have known the horror and tragedy of war are loath to repeat it.'

4. Allowing those who have not fought to take part may result in the trivialisation of the march
There has been concern expressed that by allowing descendants of veterans to participate the dignity and significance of the Anzac Day march will be undermined.
The Rats of Tobruk Association national president, Joe Madeley, has argued that it destroys the meaning of Anzac to have children and non-veterans marching. 'Anzac Day is a solemn occasion ... many youngsters who join the parade just want to get on TV and wave and carry on,' he has claimed.
There have been complaints made about the conduct of children and other non-veterans at last year's Anzac Day march.
Victorian RSL chief, Brigadier John Deighton, has been dissatisfied with the change in the tone of the march in Victoria since the descendents of veterans were allowed to take part over the last three years.
Speaking of last year, Brigadier Deighton has claimed, 'A lot of people were very poorly dressed and showed no respect to the veterans.'
'It's not a Moomba Day march,' the Brigadier has said. 'There's no prams, there's no torn jeans, there's no footy jumpers - in other words, they clean their act up from last year.'

5. The descendants of veterans can honour their family members in other ways than by marching
It has been argued that Anzac Day offers many opportunities for those who want to honour the war service of family members, but who are not themselves veterans. Victorian RSL chief, Brigadier John Deighton, has suggested that if relatives wanted to be involved they could attend the dawn service or line the route.
A similar point has been made by Jonathan Green, who, though never a soldier, this year took part in the Anzac Day march as the descendent of a World War I veteran. Mr Green has stated, 'I had no doubts about taking a place at the dawn service ... feeling right to be there, filled with nothing but a sad sense of awe and respect. Perhaps a pinch of pride ... The march is another thing altogether.'

Arguments against only Australian veterans taking part in Anzac Day marches
1. The sacrifices of all former soldiers should be acknowledged
It has been argued that Anzac Day should be an opportunity to honour the war service of all soldiers and that it should not be a narrow, essentially jingoistic exercise, where only Australian soldiers and a small number of others have their sacrifices commemorated.
Mark Baker, a diplomatic editor for The Age, has written, 'we should be welcoming to the Anzac Day parade all who want to honour the sacrifice of those who died and suffered in war and want to make peace with the past - whatever side their ancestors might have found themselves on.'
Referring particularly to some nations whose combatants were particularly disliked by Australian soldiers, Mr Baker has said of Japan, 'It might ... be recalled that Japan was Australia's ally in World War I. The Japanese battle cruiser Ibuki played a leading role in escorting the armada of 28 troop ships that carried the 20,000 men of the first Australian Imperial Force to the camps of Egypt that became the staging post for the Gallipoli campaign. Are the descendants of those sailors not worthy of marching down St Kilda Road alongside the grandsons of "Johnny Turk"?'
Italian members of the RSL have also defended their right to march on Anzac Day.
Dino De Marchi, a spokesman for the RSL Italian sub-branch, said most Italian World War II veterans who took part in the April 25 commemorations had never voluntarily fought for the fascists. Many had been conscripts and had crossed to allied units after the fall of fascist leader Benito Mussolini in 1943. Mr De Marchi has also stated that as migrants, these men and their families had contributed to Australia's prosperity.

2. The families and descendents of former soldiers should be able to honour their relatives' sacrifices and their own part in war
War, it has been argued, effects a whole society, especially the families of the combatants, and so it is appropriate that they should be able to take part in the Anzac Day march.
Suzie O'Brien, writing in The Herald Sun on April 21, 2006, has argued, '... it is fitting that families take an active role in such marches, because soldiers are not the only ones who experience sacrifice in times of war ... The brutal impact of war isn't just restricted to those who lost their lives, but the women they never married as well as the wives and children they didn't come home to.
Almost every young life lost fighting war is a husband that is no longer and a father and a grandfather and a great-grandfather who will never be. So in my mind, it is fitting to have the offspring or close relatives of service personnel marching, because it is a tribute not only to the families that sustained great losses but to families that never had a chance to exist.'

3. If descendants are not allowed to participate there may ultimately be too few marchers
An editorial published in The Australian on April 22, 2006, stated, 'The last of the 330,000 men of the First AIF who went overseas in 1914-18 have all gone. Now Australia's greatest fighting generation - the nearly one million veterans who served in World War II - is also rapidly fading away. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, there are now about 467,000 defence veterans in Australia, including 161,000 World War II servicemen and women and 49,500 Vietnam veterans.
By 2015 that number will drop by about 40 per cent to an estimated 287,000. Of these, 35,000 will be survivors from World War II and 42,000 Vietnam veterans.' There are many who are concerned that without the participation of the descendants of veterans, Australia will one day reach a situation were there are too few marchers.
The NSW RSL president, Don Rowe, a Vietnam veteran, has said he hoped in future there could be thousands of participants, their numbers swelled by the descendants of Australian men and women who had fought for their country.
Mr Rowe has said he was concerned that otherwise the Anzac Day march could peter out as many World War II veterans would soon be aged in their 90s. He has indicated that the descendants of World War II veterans would be able to march as an official group in Sydney next year.
'Already, in many country towns, there are no world war veterans left and there are just kids and descendants marching. We have to encourage that or one day no one will march at all,' Mr Rowe has stated.

4. A respectful decorum can be maintained regardless of who marches
It has been argued that the relatives of veterans should be able to take part in Anzac Day marches without an appropriate tone being lost.
For example, rules for suitable behaviour and a dress code banning football jumpers will be imposed on young marchers on Anzac Day in Melbourne. Victorian RSL chief, Brigadier John Deighton, has said there were 'certain requirements' - that marchers be properly dressed, with medals worn on the right. Only one family member will be allowed to represent a serviceman or woman in the march and the display of photos of dead relatives will be discouraged.
With proper regulation it should be possible to allow the descendants of veterans to continue to march, while at the same time retaining the dignity and solemnity that are important elements of Anzac Day.

5. Participating in the march is not a glorification of war
It has been claimed that participation in the march is not a glorification of war, irrespective of whether the marchers are veterans or their descendants.
The Australian, in an editorial published on April 25, 2006, stated, 'April 25 ... is not about glorifying war. It is, rather, about reflecting on the spirit of Anzac that lives on and inspires Australians. Diggers and Turkish soldiers sharing rations between trenches in 1915 exemplified this humanity, which has engendered a close relationship between Australians and Turkish people.'
In the same editorial The Australian noted that despite a growing national interest in and support for Anzac Day, this feeling had not been translated into increased enlistment in Australia's defence forces. 'The enthusiasm of Australia's young for commemorating the sacrifices of previous generations of Diggers has not translated into long queues at army recruitment offices. Last year, the defence force missed its recruitment goal by 1000. If current trends continue, the defence force will fall to 48,500 personnel by 2010.'
These figures would seem to indicate that a willingness to commemorate the sacrifices of Australia's armed forces does not necessarily equal a glorification of or willingness to take part in war.

Further implications and comment by the author / compiler
If Australia's current pattern of limited involvement in military conflicts (characterised by extensive use of sophisticated armaments rather than combat personnel) continues then the number of veterans available to commemorate their war service will continue to decline.
There remains, of course, the possibility that there will be extensive conflicts directly involving many combatants. This is not an end to be desired but it is the only way in which Australian commemorative services will be able to continue into the future featuring only those with direct experience of war.
Therefore, it seems highly likely that the descendants of veterans will continue to be allowed to participate in the Anzac Day march, otherwise the marches will die out along with the veterans.
If a significant number of veterans remain concerned about proper respect being demonstrated during Anzac Day marches then there are likely to be further limitations placed on the number of descendants who can march and the manner in which they can do so.
These concerns for formality and decorum may however be a generational issue. The NSW RSL president, Don Rowe, is a Vietnam veteran and he has a more liberal and inclusive attitude toward who should be able to march than some of his compatriots whose war service was during World War II.
Ultimately, it is not possible to predict with any certainty what the future of Anzac Day will hold. Only forty years ago, under the influence of the anti-war sentiment then growing in Australia, there was speculation that Anzac Day may not survive. Now, in a very different period in Australian and world history, there is a renewed interest in commemorating Australia's military involvements and those Australians who fought. The extent to which this interest will continue into the future cannot be known.

Newspaper sources used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age:
April 13, page 15, comment (on Turkey's veterans marching) by Mark Baker, `Our favourite enemies'.
April 13, page 4, news item by Carolyn Webb, `Italian veterans push to join Anzac Day parade'.
April 12, page 1, news item by Carolyn Webb, `Anzac march open to "Johnny Turk" - but that's it'.
April 10, page 3, news item by Ben Doherty, `Keep Anzac marches for veterans, says Howard'.
April 9, page 1, news item by Paul Heinrichs and Frank Walker, `Diggers dirty on Anzac Day "carnival"'.
April 14, page 8, news item by Carolyn Webb, `"Let bygones be bygones": Germans deserve place in Anzac march too, say war veterans'.
AGE, April 26, page 3, comment by Jonathan Green, `Salute those who served, not their descendants'.
AGE, April 26, page 2, news item by John Button, `Respectful pilgrims see both sides now'.
AGE, April 25, page 12, editorial (with Bruce Petty cartoon), `Lest we forget, Anzac Day is for those who know what war is'.
AGE, April 25, page 1, news item by John Button, `Turkey playing politics with Gallipoli sites'.
AGE, April 24, page 6, news item by John Button, `Turkey's rising nationalism over the Gallipoli battlefields'.
AGE, April 21, page 1, news item by Lindsay Murdoch, `At last, Australia honours its Timorese comrades'.

The Australian:
April 10, page 3, news item by Natasha Robinson, `Anzac march "not a family outing"'.
April 12, page 3, news item by Simon Kearney, `Protest march by "ignored" veterans'.

The Herald-Sun:
April 26, page 20, editorial, `Day of pride and passion'.
Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google