Summary
![Picture](/uploads/1/8/2/5/18257097/364120172.gif)
When comparing all the primary sources it is clear that there are a number of different views of the ANZAC legend. The legend seems to originate from the media and government through newspaper articles, general propaganda and joining/army recruiting posters. In contrast, accounts from front line soldiers and people who experienced the war first hand talked about the war being gruesome and horrible, this is the opposite of the what the ANZAC legend tell us.
The reason that these two primary sources would have been different is that the government would have wanted people to adopt strong nationalistic feelings and pride and overwhelmingly support the war. With enrolment figures dropping as the excitement of the war wore off, the government needed away to entice more people into joining the armed forces. The way to do this was make the ANZACs seem to be an amazing force you would be lucky to join, instead of a horrible experience that would scar you for life. Out of the two which one would make you want to join up? The government would have also wanted the ANZAC legend to form a national identity, to prove that Australia was a force to be reckoned with. It gave Australians a sense of pride, they belonged to the ANZAC legend, it was a part of them. Propaganda used to communicate to other countries that Australia was a proud and powerful country who will do anything to protect itself and others.
Maybe the ANZAC legend was true for some ANZACs who proved themselves superior to other soldiers in bravery and skills, but for most it was a traumatic experience that left permanent physical and mental scars, if it did not kill them. Altogether Primary sources show that the experience of the Australian soldiers was not the same as the official Government and media propaganda. Rather the War was a devastating experience for many soldiers and their families. This is is contrast to the official ANZAC legend derived from the exaggerated descriptions of war historians and officials.
The reason that these two primary sources would have been different is that the government would have wanted people to adopt strong nationalistic feelings and pride and overwhelmingly support the war. With enrolment figures dropping as the excitement of the war wore off, the government needed away to entice more people into joining the armed forces. The way to do this was make the ANZACs seem to be an amazing force you would be lucky to join, instead of a horrible experience that would scar you for life. Out of the two which one would make you want to join up? The government would have also wanted the ANZAC legend to form a national identity, to prove that Australia was a force to be reckoned with. It gave Australians a sense of pride, they belonged to the ANZAC legend, it was a part of them. Propaganda used to communicate to other countries that Australia was a proud and powerful country who will do anything to protect itself and others.
Maybe the ANZAC legend was true for some ANZACs who proved themselves superior to other soldiers in bravery and skills, but for most it was a traumatic experience that left permanent physical and mental scars, if it did not kill them. Altogether Primary sources show that the experience of the Australian soldiers was not the same as the official Government and media propaganda. Rather the War was a devastating experience for many soldiers and their families. This is is contrast to the official ANZAC legend derived from the exaggerated descriptions of war historians and officials.