The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Colin ForrestAnzac Hall and Glazed Link
The building is described as the Australian War Memorial. As such, it should truly be a place of remembrance and quiet reflection, honoring the sacrifice of so many Australian men and women who gave their lives or who were seriously injured in war. A building that displays so many of the weapons and stories of historic wars should truly be called a war museum. That is what the British call their display, "The Imperial War Museum", in London. German war history and artifacts are displayed in the German Museum in Berlin.
I am not opposed to the existence of a military museum. There are many people who are interested in visiting such places. I am such a person myself. I have visited many such museums overseas and have visited our own in Canberra many times. I just believe that the two types of building should be separate and distinct, not merged into one that is then called what it is not - a memorial. Why should we not have two completely separate buildings for these things. One, the National War Memorial solely devoted to its true purpose and another, located at a different location in the nation's capitol, being a true national war or military museum. Combining the two into the one building and calling it the national War Memorial is not appropriate. This way, people who truly want to honour and think of those who died in overseas conflicts can do so in a place that does not glorify and graphically highlight and explain the horrors and terrors of war by also displaying all of the content of the current "museum" parts of the building and the proposed content of the planned extensions.
The fact that companies who make modern day weapons are pouring sponsorship money into this project is indicative of the difference between a memorial and a museum.
The money being spent on the proposed extensions could certainly go a long way towards the construction of a stand-alone museum in a different part of Canberra and the current building could be rehabilitated to be just what is meant to be - a memorial.
I am not opposed to the existence of a military museum. There are many people who are interested in visiting such places. I am such a person myself. I have visited many such museums overseas and have visited our own in Canberra many times. I just believe that the two types of building should be separate and distinct, not merged into one that is then called what it is not - a memorial. Why should we not have two completely separate buildings for these things. One, the National War Memorial solely devoted to its true purpose and another, located at a different location in the nation's capitol, being a true national war or military museum. Combining the two into the one building and calling it the national War Memorial is not appropriate. This way, people who truly want to honour and think of those who died in overseas conflicts can do so in a place that does not glorify and graphically highlight and explain the horrors and terrors of war by also displaying all of the content of the current "museum" parts of the building and the proposed content of the planned extensions.
The fact that companies who make modern day weapons are pouring sponsorship money into this project is indicative of the difference between a memorial and a museum.
The money being spent on the proposed extensions could certainly go a long way towards the construction of a stand-alone museum in a different part of Canberra and the current building could be rehabilitated to be just what is meant to be - a memorial.