Talk:And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda

It's Bob Kerrey, not "Kerry".

"And I ask myself the same question"

I never understood this line to be questioning the commemoration of the war, as the article suggests. I think the song is far too insightful to offer such an iconoclastic and disrespectful slap in the face to war veterans who risked their lives for others. Rather, I always figured this lyric was suggesting that the veteran himself doesn't understand what the point of the war was. WWI in general, and the Gallipoli campaign in particular, are thought to be symbols of the imperial powers' callous disregard for their own citizens and subjects – the British commanders essentially used Australian soldiers as cannon fodder to gain proverbial inches. Hence, the veteran here wonders how all the horror could have been worth it. J21 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. While the song raises the question of whether wars should be fought and glorified, there's nothing remotely anti-veteran about it. What strikes me about that last verse is that the protaganist lost his legs, his youth, and no doubt many friends to one of the bloodiest battles in Australian history, and the kids don't even know what it was about. That'd make any old man look back and wonder if it was worth it. Worth noting, I think, is that when Bogle wrote the song in 1972, the veterans of Gallipoli were all 75+ and not far from "someday, no one will march there at all". Its a very sad and beautiful song. The article could use further work, but since it is so closely tied to ANZAC Day, I'll leave to our friends down under. -Bert 171.159.64.10 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed that text from commemoration of the battle etc. to a lament for the forgotten dead, including quotes from the song as the song's text makes the point more clearly than talking about what it is intended to mean.. : my edit User:Pedant 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you recall the debates in the 70s and even the early 80s in Australia, there were many who believed ANZAC Day was a glorification rather than commemoration of war, so the article's interpretation seems more likely. I have a vague recollection of Bogle saying as much in a contemporary ABC radio interview, but can't recall the particulars. Not sure if I agree Bogle intended it to be about the British commanders sacrificing Aussie diggers either- the association was popularised with Weir's film which was made in the context of a growing republican movement in Oz. One view is that the event was hijacked as propoganda for a political message. 212.124.244.131Digger's Daughter

Bob Kerrey

I don't know when Bob Kerrey sang the song, but (according to Wikipedia) he ran for presidantial candidacy in 1992. In 1988 he ran for the senate. Good song by the way...

He definitely sang it when he won his campaign for Nebraska senator in the late '80s. I was there. Many a person got teary-eyed, though his son just looked terminally embarrassed. Fraid I don't have a proper citation, though. dao from the placebo 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy

"Additionally, the reference to tin hats is anachronistic - they were in fact not issued until 1916."

I would dispute this fact, as the French introduced the steel helmet in 1915, and was followed by the British Empire shortly afterwards. The German army were the only ones not wearing a steel helmet before 1916. Lwdjaymac 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

well change it then!--172.203.2.68 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I moved the following passage here (deleting from main article):

• The song refers to the Turks burying their dead. ("But the band played 'Waltzing Matilda' / When we stopped to bury our slain. / Well, we buried ours, and the Turks buried theirs / Then we started all over again.") The Turks neither buried their dead nor counted them, but are estimated to have lost as many as 200,000 men. John McDermott sings this line as "Well, we burned ours, and the Turks burned theirs" -- this definitely did not happen.

The referred Wikipedia article in the footnote says that a truce was organized so both sides could bury their dead. In other words it says the reverse of what this passage claims while citing it. Odd contradiction, but clear cause for simply removing the passage. jackbrown (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

The AIF never "...sailed off to Gallipoli."

A bit pedantic no? They did sail off, they did arrive in Gallipoli, and the story is told with the benefit of hindsight and told as a recollection. From the point of view of an individual member of the AIF, after training in Egypt they went to Gallipoli.

New to this though, so ignore if stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idahoblue (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleting. Artsygeek (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

I partially agree, I did think at the time of my original posting that this was possibly a bit pedantic, Nevertheless, if I set out from home to work in the city, but shortly after arriving at the office my wife calls and asks me to collect Aunt Nelly from the airport (and I subsequently do so), no one describing my departure from home would say, "he drove off to the airport." I won't reinstate it, but if anyone agrees with me, please feel free. My original wording could be improved upon, though.

Suvla Landings 'Only lightly opposed' - you have GOT to be kidding

Those words are an insult to the 40,000 men of the four British Divisions, (10th, 11th, 53rd(Welsh) and 54th (East Anglian)) who landed at Suvla in August 1915 and were slaughtered in their thousands by an enemy who reacted as fiercely there as they did five miles south at ANZAC a few months earlier. They're also hurtful to surviving relatives of those men, of whom my wife is one. This Peter Weir-inspired myth does his country and mine no credit at all. Also, although Australians were not involved directly in the landings, they were involved directly in attacks north from the Aghyll Dere to link up with the British at Suvla, and at that time were closer to Suvla than to ANZAC cove. I'm deleting the offensive and incorrect words. RichardH (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Strongly implied"

I'm not sure I agree that the song strongly implies that he was present at the start of the campaign (and therefore was not called up in 1915). The song, to me, more implies that he was present at the Landing at Suvla Bay in August, the planning for which started earlier in the same year, thus if the narrator was called up to support that, 1915 is perfectly logical. Thoughts? Rails (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)