Anzac Legend Essay

1: Introduction
Since its inception into public discourse the Anzac Legend has been implemented by politicians to foster nationalism and create an “official” version of Australian history. The legend has arose from government propaganda and highly censored accounts of the Gallipoli campaign: it was promulgated by the federal government originally to promote Australia’s connection to the British Empire and now to promote a historical narrative and Australian identity which contains political utility. This politicized version of the Anzac legend is immune from the criticism to which it had previously been subjected and thus is ahistorical.

Foundational period:
The tone of the Anzac legend is similar to that of official recruitment propaganda produced during WW1. This propaganda projected the image of the masculine European-Australian “digger” soldier bravely volunteering. The account of the Anzac legend can be traced to the fervent and highly censored reporting of British journalist Ellis
Ashmead-Bartlett and Australian journalist Charles Bean whose descriptions of Gallipoli were reprinted within Australian newspapers.
Prior to official establishment of Anzac Day ceremonies occurred at local and state level both celebrating and grieve the fallen Anzacs and were often exploited by recruitment agencies to replace fallen soldiers.
The Anzac legend was glorified following the war by conservative media and loyalist politicians but the official narrative was promulgated by Bean in his Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918, which advertised the Anzacs as egalitarian volunteers committed to mateship.
The legend served two purposes in the early 20th century, it invested meaning to the war and created a sense of nationality and pride within the newly formed country. Politically the Anzac legend was useful for conservative loyalists as it reinforced Australia’s connection to the British Empire. Criticism of the Anzac legend arose during the 1960s, hostility to conscription, student protests and the rise of second-wave feminism challenged publicly held opinions of Anzac
Day.

Contemporary period (1990-2016).
Public interest would be reinvigorated by the release of the film Gallipoli, and from the 1990s onwards there was a notable increase in commemorative ceremonies. The election of John Howard in 1996 played a pivotal role in this revival, his legislative actions and influence as Prime Minister resulting in the commissioning of memorial buildings, an increase in the number of commemorative events in the calendar, an expansion of the Australian War Memorial and a rewriting of the educational curriculum such that it had an increased focus on the official Anzac legend.

This renewed focus was criticized as a cynical attempt to manipulate the public. Critical academics have labeled such policies a militarization of Australian history and society. The reinvigoration of the Anzac legend alongside Howard’s “black armband view of history” has been criticized as an attempt to control the narrative of Australian history and provide an incontestable view of history to which it is mandatory that Australians subscribe. The Anzac fervor in the media rose to its peak during the centenary commemorations, and consequently, to which criticism or comment not in line with the official narrative has resulted in the end of careers and a public backlash that forced Australians to leave the country.

Conclusion
There is remarkable synthesis between the loyalist politicians during the foundational period of the Anzac legend and the conservative politicians of the contemporary period. Both sought to manipulate the public away from the actual history and towards a political objective. These realities are representative of the troublesome relationship between Australian politicians and Australian history whereby an official narrative is promoted whilst dissention and debate are censored.