Originally Posted by senojekips

That's odd because I always see ones about "The ANZACs".

But taking into account there were more than three times as many Australians as Kiwis there it's not really surprising that you see more Australians. I've never seen or heard anyone belittle the part played by New Zealand in this battle or any subsequent actions.

If anyone has a legitimate *****, it would have to be the French, who had over 27,000 men there, and I must say they do rarely get a mention.

I disagree, if you sit down and watch the history channel you get bombarded with things like the "ANZAC spirit helped defeat Rommel" which is just a documentary on the Aussie 9th Division, we had this discussion once before and I mentioned that I believe the ANZAC term has been hijacked by the Australian media which would be fine if the Australian media wasn't being broadcast here as well.

I don't think our part is being belittled as much as much as written out completely the ANZAC term is being misused and applied to all Australian activities when it shouldn't.

As for the French they don't get a say in the ANZAC tradition because it is ANZAC not FANZAC, ANZAC is important not because of the location or who was there and who wasn't but because it was the first major campaign fought by both Nations as independent nations.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I disagree, if you sit down and watch the history channel you get bombarded with things like the "ANZAC spirit helped defeat Rommel" which is just a documentary on the Aussie 9th Division, we had this discussion once before and I mentioned that I believe the ANZAC term has been hijacked by the Australian media which would be fine if the Australian media wasn't being broadcast here as well.

I don't think our part is being belittled as much as much as written out completely the ANZAC term is being misused and applied to all Australian activities when it shouldn't.

Well, personally I couldn't really care, when I see the word I don't see any one sided implications and I'm not going to get into a shitefite over it, as I don't see it as a competition as to who has the rights to use it for whatever.
I don't really know about NZ, but there are laws in place in Australia regarding the use of the term ANZAC.

Originally Posted by MontyB

As for the French they don't get a say in the ANZAC tradition because it is ANZAC not FANZAC, ANZAC is important not because of the location or who was there and who wasn't but because it was the first major campaign fought by both Nations as independent nations.

The initial post never mentioned ANZACs or the ANZAC tradition. I said that I never saw the Australian involvement as a separate issue, I've always understood it to be an ANZAC thing.

Originally Posted by r.fox

war documenties about the Battle of gallipoli, or about VC winners and there all about ****** Australians

My reply was about Gallipoli and people who were allegedly "left out." In all my life I've never seen a mention of the part played by the French in this theatre, they had more troops there than either Australia or NZ.

Also I suppose it's fair to say that most US made war movies, books etc., focus on the part their own country's played, and the same for Britain, Canada or whoever. If NZ hasn't made similar movies or whatever it's hardly anyone else's fault. You'll just have to get your own media to make more NZ centric movies on the subject, I'm pretty sure that Australia doesn't make your media show our movies etc.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Also I suppose it's fair to say that most US made war movies, books etc., focus on the part their own country's played, and the same for Britain, Canada or whoever. If NZ hasn't made similar movies or whatever it's hardly anyone else's fault. You'll just have to get your own media to make more NZ centric movies on the subject, I'm pretty sure that Australia doesn't make your media show our movies etc.

That would be true with movies, I generally don't give a flying monkey's about the inaccuracy of movies until they portray historical events horribly, examples of this would be U-571 which was an insult to the Royal Navy and Inglorious Bastards which was an insult to every one.

However the role of history units is to accurately record historical events not make "patriotic" adverts because the reality is that while I have said the History Channel is a great place to start your learning unfortunately it is also the place 90% of the population complete their learning on a topic as well, as such inaccuracies and omissions become fact.

Originally Posted by MontyB

However the role of history units is to accurately record historical events not make "patriotic" adverts because the reality is that while I have said the History Channel is a great place to start your learning unfortunately it is also the place 90% of the population complete their learning on a topic as well, as such inaccuracies and omissions become fact.

Well, you've got me at a disadvantage there, as I have never seen the "History Channel", and I don't know of any "history units" that make other than documentaries.

All I can say is that if Australian history units focus more on the part played by Australians in these events, I don't see any great fault in that, because they would primarily be recording Australian history, and as far as I can see it would be up to NZ's history units to record yours.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Well, you've got me at a disadvantage there, as I have never seen the "History Channel", and I don't know of any "history units" that make other than documentaries.

All I can say is that if Australian history units focus more on the part played by Australians in these events, I don't see any great fault in that, because they would primarily be recording Australian history, and as far as I can see it would be up to NZ's history units to record yours.

A bit off topic, but wasn't General Freyberg a commander of a NZ army division during the Second World War? They fought at Monte Cassino, I think. MontyB might know this much better than I do. There is an opportunity to write or produce something for a TV documentary, TV Show, or even a movie about them.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Well, you've got me at a disadvantage there, as I have never seen the "History Channel", and I don't know of any "history units" that make other than documentaries.

All I can say is that if Australian history units focus more on the part played by Australians in these events, I don't see any great fault in that, because they would primarily be recording Australian history, and as far as I can see it would be up to NZ's history units to record yours.

And I can accept that but if you are going to make Australian history documentaries then surely they should be displayed as such, if you look at the example I gave before the Australian 9th Divisions actions in Tobruk are worthy of the highest praise why try and dilute it by reinventing it as an ANZAC action.

The over use of the term ANZAC in my opinion does Australian only actions a disservice by incorrectly assigning credit to something that wasn't there and it is insulting to New Zealand actions because it effectively writes them out of a major part of our history.

I think it is right up there with the claims that America won WW1 and WW2, while there is some truth to it, it is hardly accurate.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

A bit off topic, but wasn't General Freyberg a commander of a NZ army division during the Second World War? They fought at Monte Cassino, I think. MontyB might know this much better than I do. There is an opportunity to write or produce something for a TV documentary, TV Show, or even a movie about them.

What the hell for?
Freyberg was commander of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force throughout WW2 but more notably at Cassino and Crete and he failed both times, of the New Zealand leaders I personally think Major-General Kippenberger was a better choice for command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Kippenberger

But yes we have moved well off topic so I will probably leave it there before we destroy the thread completely.

Originally Posted by MontyB

And I can accept that but if you are going to make Australian history documentaries then surely they should be displayed as such,

I'm sure they are, I just think that you are getting your knickers in a twist about a largely imagined slight.

As much as I distrust those who handle the reins in these matters, I can't really see any reason why they would attempt to put NZ off side.

My whole point being, that this subject was presented in such a manner as to say that all of this was an evil deliberate "plot" to deprive NZ of some sort of reflected glory, and I don't think that it is.

What really pisses me off is; when people are whining about a problem and don't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

What really pisses me off is; when people are whining about a problem and don't do anything about it.

I will disagree, whining in some cases starts because of the frustration of things you can do nothing about.

I remember a professor telling us that "at times in life you will reach a point of impasse, you can either choose to confront it and still be there in 20 years or find a way around it and reach your goal.

Most whining in my opinion is from those who are still confronting the impasse.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I will disagree, whining in some cases starts because of the frustration of things you can do nothing about.

I remember a professor telling us that "at times in life you will reach a point of impasse, you can either choose to confront it and still be there in 20 years or find a way around it and reach your goal.

Most whining in my opinion is from those who are still confronting the impasse.

Yes, however, many are whining about things they can do something about.