Reading time: 4 minutes
In 1990, when the Hawke government flew 58 first world war veterans to Turkey for the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings, Australia’s Anzac commemoration was transformed.
The subsequent emergence of the Gallipoli pilgrimage directly provided thousands of Australians with an alternative way of experiencing and understanding the Anzac legend. Indirectly, it altered the way Australians understand Gallipoli.
By Brad West, University of South Australia
The internationalising of its remembrance and the accounting of former foes facilitated a more inclusive historical culture and a resurgence of popular interest and participation in Anzac Day.
Historians and social commentators typically explain this cultural transformation by emphasising the distinctive social and political circumstances around Gallipoli. But might the rise of heritage tourism and the increasing ease of international travel lead to more of Australia’s foreign military experiences being better understood?
Sites of war tourism
The Vietnam War is an interesting example to consider in regard to this question. This is particularly so with 2016 marking the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. Various veteran and battlefield tours are set to take place.
My soon-to-be-published research on war tourism in Vietnam can provide insights into what the effect of tourism on Australians’ remembrance of the war might be.
As Vietnam began to open itself up to tourism and foreign investment in the 1990s, the Vietnamese ambassador to the United States, Le Van Bang, felt compelled to emphasise that:
Vietnam is a country, not a war.
The Vietnamese are eager for their country to be known for more than its military conflict. But the Demilitarised Zone, the “Hanoi Hilton” prison for captured enemy soldiers, and the War Remnants Museum are among the most popular places to visit for international tourists.
Western tourists travelling to Vietnam today for the first time also express their surprise at how welcoming locals are and at their lack of antagonism in relation to the war. This is similar to Gallipoli in the 1990s.

Part of the reason Western tourists are welcome in Vietnam is related to social memory. The conflict is understood within a romantic narrative in which sacrifices are seen as contributing to a united and modern country.
Among the various war tourism sites, the Cu Chi tunnels, located less than an hour’s drive from Ho Chi Minh City, are perhaps the most popular. Much like the pilgrimage experience at Gallipoli, a visit to Cu Chi offers tourists a way of engaging with history that is vastly different to the austere museum genre that dominates in Western countries.
Rather than being a hands-off experience, visitors at Cu Chi get to move through the tunnel network, walk in the jungle, see where booby traps were hidden, view how the Viet Cong reused American bombs and, for those who desire, shoot the rifles used in the war.
Developing memory
It is tempting to interpret the Cu Chi tour as catering for tourists and trivialising bloodshed. But this reading fails to comprehend the high level of domestic tourism and the serious historical significance that Cu Chi has as part of North Vietnam’s victory.
Approximately 41% of Vietnam’s population is under the age of 25. The memory-building here is seen as a way to establish national unity.
For Western tourists, Cu Chi is also far from a war “theme park”. Interviews I have conducted with Americans, Australians and Europeans clearly show that they overwhelmingly come to a greater appreciation of the lived experience of soldiers on both sides.
Imagining themselves where Vietnamese and Western soldiers died forces them to rethink their prior understanding of the conflict – particularly from films, commemorations and memorials where the Vietnamese are mere backstage actors.
More than 300,000 Australians visit Vietnam annually. With the ongoing growth of tourism, it is likely that tourists’ experiences at Cu Chi and other war-related sites in Vietnam will increasingly influence how we commemorate this conflict, and encourage Australians to see it from both sides of the frontline.
This article was originally published in The Conversation.
Podcasts about Australia and Vietnam War
Articles you may also like
Brilliant and Flawed: The Enduring Legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte
The 200th anniversary of his death (1821-2021) renews discussion on how the former Emperor should be commemorated. By Michael Vecchio Military genius. Autocratic despot. Progressive visionary. Bloodthirsty war monger. The contrasting list of terms to describe the legacy of Napoleon Bonaparte indicate just how polarizing of a figure the former French Emperor was not only […]
The Afghan Wars 1839-42 and 1878-80 – Audiobook
The First Anglo–Afghan War was fought between British India and Afghanistan from 1839 to 1842. It was one of the first major conflicts during the Great Game, the 19th century competition for power and influence in Central Asia between the United Kingdom and Russia, and also marked one of the worst setbacks inflicted on British power in the region.
The Battle for Crete: Hard Fought
Reading time: 8 minutes
Wherever they fought in the Second World War, Australian troops acquitted themselves well. They escaped the clutches of the Afrika Korps in the Benghazi handicap and soon after helped hold back Rommel at the second battle of El Alamein. Even certain defeat couldn’t stop Australian troops, like in Crete, where they and their New Zealand counterparts fought a rearguard action that delayed the German war effort considerably.
The text of this article is republished from The Conversation in accordance with their republishing policy and is licenced under a Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives license.