How does the history of any given event come to be written in a certain way? A story can be told from many points of view. The significance that the event is deemed to hold may vary. Subsequent events will throw new light and alter its significance for some. Thus radically different versions of an event compete for attention. Often one particular version holds the field drowning out its rivals. This intellectual hegemony need have no relation to the accuracy of that version of history and alternative, equally valid versions can sink without trace.
The Gallipoli campaign of 1915 serves as an excellent case study through which this process of ''making history'' can be observed. This book traces the disparities in the memory of Gallipoli that are evident in the countries that participated in the campaign. It explores the way in which history is written at the personal, the local, the professional, and the national level.
Among the case studies are Martin Gilbert on Churchill, Keith Jeffery on Gallipoli & Ireland, Feroze Yasamee on the Turkish perspective, and David Dutton on the French view of a campaign in which they were more heavily involved than the Australians. Christopher Pugsley uncovers the reality behind the myths of Anzac, and Keith Grieves writes on the local commemoration of the campaign in Sussex. Other chapters consider the writing of unit histories, the professional study of the campaign in the development of amphibious warfare, the romance of the British cultural history of Gallipoli, and the shifts that are evident in the portrayal of Anzacs in Australian cinema.