|
Page 1 of 2
(Page:
1
2
)
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Hi all,
I recently watched the 1981 'Gallipoli' movie (starring Mel Gibson). In addition, I watched the 2015 mini-series, also titled 'Gallipoli' and this has sparked an renewed interest in me into the Dardanelles expedition. The portrayals of the Battle of the Nek in both are particularly gut-wrenching.
The expedition was a disaster in every sense of the word. A naval force comprising of obsolete warships was thrown in and then held off, for fear of the mines the Ottoman Empire had laid. An initial force of only 70,000 troops was cast ashore with minimal training (the British Admiralty had seemingly refused to sign off on an invasion with anything less than 200,000 troops), many of whom were raw recruits and unseasoned in combat. Vague objectives were offered ('take this ridge, then that ridge, the a few others until you reach Constantinople') coupled with a chain of command comprising multiple structures and loyalties. They faced a passionate and determined foe, fighting on their own turf. Whilst we've surely seen off the unfair view (of many) that the ANZAC troops were used carelessly (compared to the other Allied forces present), there can be no doubt that the bloodletting of the ANZAC troops was extreme in relation to their size of their forces. Nations were born here; and ideas of Empire began to crumble in earnest.
My view remains that the expedition was ultimately unnecessary; it would not have harmed the Germans to have taken out the Ottoman Empire (assuming they would have collapsed anyway) and the easier route of supplies of materiel to Russia would have been unlikely to improve their lot. 70,000 troops (plus the reinforcements fed in as time went on) could have been better used on the Western Front, or used to more quickly push the Ottomans out of the Levant and away from the Suez Canal.
Views, anyone?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Colin,
As a strategic concept, the attempt had merit : at least, I’m going to try and make a convincing argument here.
Maybe my efforts will fail as surely as the Dardanelles expedition did !
It would be a pity, though, if nobody tried.
If there’s a chance to find a peripheral approach that offers an alternative to slaughter and deadlock in which the enemy enjoys significant tactical and strategic advantage, then why not adopt it ?
As a concept, I will venture the view that the Dardanelles offered that alternative.
In its implementation, the thing was tragically flawed.
The boost to Russian home front morale of restoring Constantinople to the Orthodox Church was bound to be one of immense significance, especially with an ultra religious peasantry : sufficient, perhaps, to have kept tsarist Russia alive and make Germany’s two front war unbearable.
I’ll make some more comments a bit later.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Colin and Phil,
Would like to add my thoughts but from the 1st April I will be offline for a few days.
Have always been interested in Gallipoli because my grandfathers were in the landing at W Beach with the East Lancashire Fusilers.
Also of interest - Peter Hart, since he retired from the Imperial War Museum, has been doing lots of podcasts about (amongst other things) Gallipoli and Battlefield Tours - lots of photos. Pete and Gary's Military History All Free.
[Read More]
61: Attack on the Dardanelles!
54: General Hunter-Weston
50: Gallipoli - Evacuation of Helles
47: Gallipoli - Evacuation of Anzac and Suvla
33: The French at Gallipoli
28: Gallipoli - Helles Diversions
27: Conditions at Gallipoli
22: Rupert Brooke & the Glitterati
18: Gallipoli - The Third Battle of Krithia
14: Gallipoli - The Second Battle of Krithia
12: Gallipoli Landings - Y Beach
6: Simpson - The Man with the Donkey
3: Gallipoli Landings - V Beach
Quote:The boost to Russian home front morale of restoring Constantinople to the Orthodox Church was bound to be one of immense significance, especially with an ultra religious peasantry : sufficient, perhaps, to have kept tsarist Russia alive and make Germany’s two front war unbearable.
Interesting but complex.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Trevor,
That podcast has been entertaining and informative : a bit of a godsend in these distorted times.
Peter Hart is fanatically anti Churchill and will tolerate no dissent from his view that the Gallipoli enterprise was one fantastic foul up in its aspirations and its implementation.
It's pretty well agreed that the implementation was catastrophically flawed, but I am advocating a more favourable view of the aspirational side of things.
Is it right to look for a means of envelopment or exploitation in the deployment of forces in battles and wars ?
Why go head on when an alternative allows for an exposed flank or a chink in the foe's armour ?
France and Flanders was going to be toe to toe against the mighty German army, with a mortality rate heavily in the favour of the tactical defensive. Never more so than in 1915.
An amphibious attempt on the Belgian coast was countenanced, but Churchill's Antwerp foray in 1914 had rather compromised that strategy.
The allure of the Dardanelles had much to commend it. The Balkan nations held great sway in terms of which way their allegiances might go ; the diplomatic impact of an Entente success there must not be underrated.
In his memoirs, Falkenhayn laid great store on the importance of keeping the link with the Ottoman Empire intact. This rather surprises me, in view of how Falkenhayn saw the Western Front as the vital focus of German effort. His awareness of the importance of conquering Serbia reflected this high value he placed on keeping Turkey onside with the Central Powers.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Gents, thanks for weighing in with some interesting offerings. I'll make time for podcasts, Trevor. Hope all is well at your end and that we see you back online soon.
Quote:
Why go head on when an alternative allows for an exposed flank or a chink in the foe's armour ?
I've been reflecting on this comment today, Phil. I have no real argument against it, as it is easy for me to sit with the enormous benefit of hindsight and say the war would be won or lost on the Western Front. I accept the Allies probably had to try other options and that there would be likely be mistakes in doing so.
What I can't accept is the length of the debacle at the Dardanelles; 10 months of little progress, heavy casualties and resentment from soldiers and civilians back home confused as to why they were there. Once it was clear the sweeping success anticipated was not going to happen, the expeditionary force should have been withdrawn and an alternative strategy devised. The breakout attempts in August 1915 were wildly optimistic and poorly handled by all involved.
This begs the question of where else an expedition could have been sent to try and wear down the Central Powers? The Ottoman Empire could have been rolled up from Egypt to the Levant and into Anatolia. Allied forces could have been deployed earlier to Italy and tried to break through against the Austrians. A landing of significance on the Belgian coast supported by the Home Fleet could have outflanked the German armies entirely.
I suppose therefore my rambling point is that Gallipoli was a disaster in delivery, rather than in thinking? Sorry, I've lost all cohesion!
More to follow once I collect my thoughts.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8054
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Hi Colin,
I saw a documentary on Gallipoli which pointed out s few things, one the British promised to provide the Turkish Navy 2 warships before they joined the German side, only when the British refused delivery, did the Turks join the Axis, the Germans were only to happy to provide the Turks with their needed warships! Also that this site of Gallipoli was picked by Churchill as the peninsula that had to be taken to control the sea lane of the Dardinelles! Later after the battle in walking that part of the peninsula clearly showed that it had no real area that would control shipping!
So it was a total waste of good Commonwealth Soldiers (ANZAC) lives! Also finally when the Commonwealth Forces did successfully withdraw, they left so many much needed war materials to the Turks!!?
Turely a fiasco!
Dave
BTW I also liked the Mel Gibson movie on the subject!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13339
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote: Hi Colin,
I saw a documentary on Gallipoli which pointed out s few things, one the British promised to provide the Turkish Navy 2 warships before they joined the German side, only when the British refused delivery, did the Turks join the Axis, the Germans were only to happy to provide the Turks with their needed warships! Also that this site of Gallipoli was picked by Churchill as the peninsula that had to be taken to control the sea lane of the Dardinelles! Later after the battle in walking that part of the peninsula clearly showed that it had no real area that would control shipping!
So it was a total waste of good Commonwealth Soldiers (ANZAC) lives! Also finally when the Commonwealth Forces did successfully withdraw, they left so many much needed war materials to the Turks!!?
Turely a fiasco!
Dave
BTW I also liked the Mel Gibson movie on the subject!
There were French troops and many British Imperial troops including support units, and Indians and Newfoundlanders and of course, the ANZACS at Gallipoli.
Casualties:
GB and Ireland: 21,255 killed. 52,230 wounded. 5% killed
Australia: 8709 killed. 19,441 wounded
France: 10,000 killed. 17,000 wounded
New Zealand. 2779 killed 5,212 wounded
India 1358 killed 3,421 wounded
Newfoundland. 49 killed 93 wounded
Totals: 44,150 killed 97,397 wounded.
(Source: New Zealand History site which credits author Richard Stowers for the numbers from his book, Bloody Gallipoli)
I have seen different numbers from other sources.
Note also that the British and Irish contributed the greatest number of troops to the campaign
GB and Ireland. 410,000
Australia 50,000
NZ 8556
India 5000
Newfoundland. 1000
France 79,000
And we must note that the Ottoman Empire (Turks) had 86,692 killed and 164,617 wounded in defence of their territory.
So I think that while we acknowledge that the ANZAC casualties were very high for the size of their forces, that the British Imperial troops comprised by far the largest contribution to the allied effort.
Also, why is it that we hear so little of the 10,000 French soldiers who fell at Gallipoli?
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
George,
Absolutely first rate concluding comment.
The French are too often overlooked.
At a time when France was fighting for her life on home soil, and about to embark on one of the biggest and bloodiest offensives in Artois, she yet chose to commit a significant force to the Dardanelles and sustain heavier casualties there than those suffered by the Australians, of whom we hear so much.
I would opine that this implies there was strategic merit in the idea of that ill fated campaign. Why else would the desperately struggling French choose to get involved ? Perhaps they were worried about missing out on the spoils of victory and losing their foothold in the Near and Middle East. Or would it be fanciful to suggest that there was a real chance of winning the war by using maritime power and peripheral exploitation in an Entente venture that would enhance the Coalition warfare against the Central Powers ?
Not so very fanciful, IMHO.
Edit : There is still a tendency in the antipodean narrative to understate the British loss of life in the campaign. The source you cite, George, which is also used in the Canberra War Memorial, is well short of the mark. The actual British death toll in the Dardanelles was one third greater....... the true total was close to thirty thousand.
We need to reckon with the enormous loss of Ottoman lives : a point you make well. Indeed, in a rough and ready assessment, the Allies succeeded in achieving a kill ratio that was 1.7 to 1 in their favour, a most remarkable feature in a campaign that afforded the Turks many defensive advantages. This is all the more pertinent in view of the casualty exchange rate on the Western Front in 1915, where the Germans were killing two allied soldiers for every one of their own. If there is a choice between one theatre of operations, where the enemy kills your own men at twice the rate that you kill his, and another where you kill nearly two of his for every one of yours, the merits of the latter - in my reckoning - make a compelling reason to fight there.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Phil,
Interesting stats on the death tolls. I suppose I could counter by saying a laudable 'score' of 1.7 Turks dead to every 1 Allied solider still doesn't push any Germans out of Belgium or France. Remember also the Turks were as fanatical about counter-attacks as the Germans proved to be - I wonder how much the disparity would be on the Western Front in 1915 if the Germans had simply just given ground slowly to bleed the Allies, instead of launching their own offensives / counter-offensives? Likewise, if the Turks had simply dug in, where would the figures be?
You mentioned earlier that 1915 was a brutal year; lessons of attack barely learned and nobody was quite getting grip with the weapons suddenly being used on an industrial scale. I concede the Allies had to try something - anything - to try and pursue their war aims. It must have been tempting to point at a map and think there was a shortcut to knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war. I can see why the Allies agreed to it; it had promise of a victory that simply wasn't likely in on the Western Front.
Despite the carnage of the fighting, credit must go to those who planned the evacuation. Not a single man lost, but a mountain of materiel left behind. I wonder if the Turks made much use of whatever they could salvage?
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Colin,
Something that needs emphasis is the impact of the Ottoman entry into the war on Russia.
The Turks launched an attack into the Caucasus in late 1914 that came to grief under Russian fire and winter conditions : but the strain was sufficient for the Russians to issue a cry for help.
That dimension to the Dardanelles strategy must not be overlooked. The fighting between the Russians and the Turks was significant and prolonged. I don’t know much about it, but I was taken back to see that a soviet demographer by the name of Urlanis, in a survey of war deaths, claimed that two thirds of all Ottoman soldiers killed in the Great War died at the hands of the Russians. Bearing in mind what we know about the enormity of the Turkish casualties at Gallipoli, that strikes me as rather a tall claim, but it must not be discounted. It certainly lends an additional justification to the Dardanelles enterprise.
You’re right, of course : if a million Turks had been killed at Gallipoli, it wasn’t going to shift the Germans from their lines in France and Flanders.
But what the impact of the fall of Constantinople was going to be is really something to consider : Russian collapse in the Great War was not caused by shortage of men and munitions.....the summer of 1917 saw the Russians equipped with adequate guns and shells, and with millions of men. It was the loss of popular support for the war that brought down Imperial Russia, and I really do think that the resolve would have been massively strengthened by a triumphant reversion of that iconic city to Christian rule. Slavic Christianity versus Ottoman Islam was something that, I suspect, motivated the millions of Russian peasants and workers to fight. Stalin understood that appeal of the Church to Russian sensibility, and used it in 1941-45, as did Putin when he imprisoned that irreverent female pop group Pussy Riot : their cardinal sin was to perform their act in a church !
Incidentally, when the Germans attacked at Second Ypres in April and May 1915, they still succeeded in killing many more than they lost themselves. Even at Verdun the following year, the French lost more dead than the Germans. On the Somme, in 1916, the Germans , in the sector against the British, took two lives for every one they lost.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13339
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
I thought that the Russians requested an allied attack or show of force at Gallipoli.
And the allies wanted to keep the Russians in the war. How much different would this war had been had the Russians been knocked out in 1915? With Turkey out of the picture, it would have been much easier to supply the Russians as needed as the allies would have had access to the Black Sea.
That appears to be sound reasoning on the part of the allies, doesn't it? Churchill thought so.
Were the Russians in need of food and war materiel in 1915?
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote:
That appears to be sound reasoning on the part of the allies, doesn't it? Churchill thought so.
George
Sound reasoning ? Yes, I would have no hesitation in agreeing with that. The whole thing, to my mind, really does boil down to a good idea that was hideously fouled up in implementation.
I reckon we need to be more aware of the awful pressures that were bearing on the soldiers and statesmen at the time. This was all happening at point blank range. The war had developed at a staggering intensity, which, ironically, was compounded by its equilibrium and deadlock. With our luxurious hindsight, it looks like a madly improvised affair, really a wing and a prayer if ever there was one. Heck, even the minesweeping exercise was entrusted to British trawlermen who were trained to catch fish, not buoyant high explosive devices, let alone under fire. The ensuing debacle's all too understandable. The trawlermen cracked up under the strain, and even one of the senior British naval commanders had a nervous breakdown. This was all decided and effected in a desperately short time under pressure of high intensity warfare, with people reeling under the strain. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but sometimes these obvious things are forgotten in our determination to attribute blame. Churchill is vilified as the principal culprit. Peter Hart, especially, takes this line. For him, the Tories in general, and WSC in particular, are anathema. Significantly, though, Clement Attlee, doyen of British Labour Prime Ministers, and himself a veteran of the Gallipoli fighting, always insisted that the venture was winnable and endowed with the potential to achieve momentous strategic results. He was not alone.
Sorry, George, I haven't attempted to answer your question about the Russian predicament in 1915. A colossal mixture of might and fragility, ruined by outrageous corruption ( what's changed ?).
There was plenty of stuff and enormous numbers of people, but they weren't always available where and when it mattered. Logistics were problematic, since the railways were not completed. I wish I knew more, and could make a better response. People think of Tannenberg and write the Russians off as totally outclassed. Not so, I contend. They made havoc with the Austrians, beat the Turks and even roughed up the Germans now and then. Two and a half million Russian soldiers were taken prisoner 1914-17, sixty per cent of them by the Germans. The Russians took 1.75 million prisoners from the Central Powers, of whom fewer than ten per cent were Germans. Five and a half million Russians were killed or wounded ; but they accounted for three and a half million Austrian, Hungarian, German, Bulgarian and Turkish soldiers who died or bled in battle. No push over here. I wonder if the Germans and Austrians under estimated the Russians, thinking of their defeat at the hands of the Japanese a decade earlier. Likewise, I suspect that the British and French underestimated the Turks, who had been beaten by the Balkan allies in an overlooked conflict a couple of years prior to the Great War.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13339
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Thank you Phil. That was informative and certainly I do not know enough about this part of the war. I have always wondered why Winston wears the dunce cap when the Gallipoli issue arises.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8054
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Just checking the topography of Gallipoli with it's solid up & down risky science fiction surface, only a mad man would purpose attacking their!??
That and the fact that the Turks on the high ground had more of an advantage than the Union at Gettysburg! Also defending their home turf, No way were the Turkish forces losing! Bad choice WSC! Very bad choice for the Allies!
What say you??
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Something also to be noted. Lost in the national myth-building around Gallipoli. Only one third of the Ottoman 5th Army was Turkish. Two thirds were Syrian Arabs.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote: I have always wondered why Winston wears the dunce cap when the Gallipoli issue arises.
If Winston was a dunce, he was a diabolically persuasive one.
Jackie Fisher, First Sea Lord, also underwent a kind of nervous breakdown, because he couldn't cope with Churchill's ability to win arguments with him.
Fisher actually said that he knew Winston was wrong, remonstrated, lost the argument and was converted to Churchill's point of view.....only to revert to his original opposition, and then to find that he was persuaded yet again !
The question, I suppose, is : was Churchill selling a dud ?
In my opinion, no.
The thing that was being advocated was not a folly ; but the thing that was delivered was a fiasco.
Scores of thousands of Allied lives were wasted in that horrific campaign. For every Allied soldier who was killed at Gallipoli in 1915, ten were killed on the Western Front that year. Were those lives in France and Flanders not thrown away as surely as those in the Dardanelles ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8054
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote: Something also to be noted. Lost in the national myth-building around Gallipoli. Only one third of the Ottoman 5th Army was Turkish. Two thirds were Syrian Arabs.
Trevor
Trevor,
I never knew that 2 thirds were Syrian Arabs! Why would these Arabs be an Axis member on Germany's side??
Dave
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Quote:Quote: Something also to be noted. Lost in the national myth-building around Gallipoli. Only one third of the Ottoman 5th Army was Turkish. Two thirds were Syrian Arabs.
Trevor Trevor, I never knew that 2 thirds were Syrian Arabs! Why would these Arabs be an Axis member on Germany's side?? Dave
Dave,
Because it was part of the Ottoman Empire.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
This is something so important that I sought confirmation.
The Al Jazeera news service pitched a bulletin on the Gallipoli commemorations, and referred to the “ forgotten Arabs of Gallipoli”.
What was specified was that two thirds of Mustafa Kemal’s 19th Division - the troops who were the first to face the invaders - were Arabs.
There wasn’t an allusion to the rest of the Ottoman forces that fought there in the following months.
There’s also suggestion that the extremely high death rate among the Ottoman forces was attributable to the soldiers being deployed in very profligate counter attacks, during which the men were coerced into making mass attacks against the Allies.
The Ottoman soldiers - both Turkish and Arab - were cannon fodder, and were subjected to slaughter even more than the Allied forces on the Peninsula .
I wonder if the Allies had more firepower at their disposal, especially with the naval guns from those big ships.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kevinmeath
Navan
Ireland
|
Posts: 4
Joined: 2020
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote: Hi Colin,
I saw a documentary on Gallipoli which pointed out s few things, one the British promised to provide the Turkish Navy 2 warships before they joined the German side, only when the British refused delivery, did the Turks join the Axis, the Germans were only to happy to provide the Turks with their needed warships! Also that this site of Gallipoli was picked by Churchill as the peninsula that had to be taken to control the sea lane of the Dardinelles! Later after the battle in walking that part of the peninsula clearly showed that it had no real area that would control shipping!
So it was a total waste of good Commonwealth Soldiers (ANZAC) lives! Also finally when the Commonwealth Forces did successfully withdraw, they left so many much needed war materials to the Turks!!?
Turely a fiasco!
Dave
BTW I also liked the Mel Gibson movie on the subject!
Hi,
The British were building two Dreadnought Battleships for Turkey, they were partly paid for via public subscription and these two 'new super weapons' were a cause of much national pride. As war is declared these two Battleships are nearing completion and Churchill decides to take them over for the RN. As you point out this was taken very badly by the Turkish public and was used as an excuse for war, it was compounded by two German warships (a Battlecrusier and a Heavy Cruiser) trapped in the Mediterranean being 'generously (they were trapped and doomed otherwise). The pro-German faction in Ottoman government wins out and they join the Central powers.
Churchill is often blamed for this action however like the whole of Gallipoli campaign its more complicated that its often presented. He just didn't 'steal' them as claimed they were being built in British yards the RN took them over and the British government promised to return them after the war or submit appropriate compensation. Now when they were taken over it was not certain who would win out in the power struggles in the Ottoman regime the pro-British or the pro-German factions, if Churchill allowed them to go to the Ottomans and subsequently the Ottomans join the Central powers anyway (as they might) he will be roasted by everyone then and since for foolishly given two state of the art 'super naval assets' to the enemy. If he stalls they are not going to be completed anyway-- that will infuriate the Ottomans anyway -- because zero work will be done on warships destined for neutral countries in wartime anyway.
If Churchill takes them he strengths the RN if he doesn't he potentially strengthens the enemy meaning that he now has to potentially divert Dreadnoughts from the Home fleet to deal with them.
Another problem with Gallipoli is the Allies are attempt and amphibious assault in the 20th century with technology that was little change from the start of the 19th and once landed faced the problem of almost every front that technology favoured the defender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if the Allies had more firepower at their disposal, especially with the naval guns from those big ships.
Regards, Phil
Hi Phil,
I think this a key point. The Allied naval force had an edge in firepower (on paper), but wasn't willing to force the issue by entering minefields to gain more advantageous positioning, especially after it lost a few vessels to these mines. In addition, it was largely obsolete battleships that comprised the bulk of the naval force; that is pre-Dreadnought battleships that had decent weaponry but couldn't hope to compete against the German High Seas fleet. Their proposed use as a floating batteries to support the Allied landings seemed a compromise at the time (and surely still seems so now).
Another issue is that Sir Ian Hamilton didn't have the authority to force the Royal Navy (and other Allied naval forces) into any course of action. This took negotiation via Kitchener and the Admiralty - 'hamstrung' may be an understatement. His main firepower assets couldn't be directed as he required to support his army on the beachheads.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Colin,
One or two of Hamilton’s high ranking subordinates - officers who never relinquished their conviction that the operation had a decent chance - were of the opinion that Hamilton was too much the gentleman , and failed to exhibit the necessary ruthlessness in pressing his demands for munitions.
They were keen to emphasise Hamilton’s decency, courage and martial qualities, but implied that if he had been a bit more of a shit , the thing would have worked.
I’ll try and find the source and pitch it .
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Just a quick post to acknowledge the commemorations of Anzac Day in Australia and New Zealand. I thought of them yesterday morning as the sun rose.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Colin,
Please don't hesitate to pitch in more with this.
Such an interesting topic, Gallipoli, with all its controversies.
A dramatic and compelling thing to think and talk about.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
I´m following this this thread and making notes to reply.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Anyone fancy joining me in a kind of anecdotal compilation of Gallipoli stories ?
Let's start with today's date, 28 April , and see what was happening 106 years ago on the Peninsula.
First Battle of Krithia. Fourteen thousand Allied soldiers make a significant advance , but suffer three thousand casualties. Two Royal Marine battalions are deployed as reinforcements at Anzac.
Since the landings of the 25th, the British and Anzac contingents have already taken about nine thousand casualties, thirty per cent of them fatal. The French have also been fighting hard.
This First Battle of Krithia is characterised by chaos and confusion, and a significant chance to exploit the situation is wasted, and the Turks are able to consolidate their defences atop the Achi Baba ridge. There is a Gettysburg Day two feel to the narrative, a touch and go flavour, with a controversial legacy, especially regarding the conduct and character of Aylmer Hunter-Weston ( " Hunter-Bunter") : he commands the British 29th Division, and is a kind of caricature of the music hall depiction of a crusty British general of the old imperial school.
The intensity of the fighting has come as a terrible shock, compounding the effects of the losses and leaving soldiers and their officers exhausted and bewildered. This has not been expected ; the Ottoman soldiers are fighting with a skill and resolve that has not been bargained for.
To make the cup run over, a severe storm in the night jeopardises the ability of the fleet to supply the army, and the position begins to look precarious.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Here’s another vignette from 28 April 1915, this one from a Brigadier General.
General William Marshall, then commanding 87th Brigade of 29th Division, with the notorious Hunter-Weston being Divisional commander, describes how things went in the pell mell fighting of First Krithia.
The situation was as bad as it well could be ; the whole of the French troops were retiring ; the 88th Brigade was conforming to this retrograde movement, as also were two battalions of the 86th Brigade. Only the 87th Brigade and two battalions of the 86th ( Royal Fusiliers and Lancashire Fusiliers) were still attacking.
Trevor....the very name Lancashire Fusiliers conjures up your references to one of your grandfathers. He was there, in this fight, wasn’t he ?
What was to be done ? Although the Turks were firing hard I felt fairly certain that we only had a rear-guard against us. But the precipitate retirement on the right had ruined what otherwise might have been a great success......The day was won and yet lost.
I then went back and found the commander of the 88th Brigade ; told him what the situation was and that he must bring his Brigade forward and prolong the line. He replied that this was impossible , his men were worn out and could not do it. Taking him with me, I went over to a body of men and said : Look here, men ; the ground in front of you has to be gained either to-night or to-morrow, would you rather go forward now and dig in, or wait and cross the same ground again to-morrow. The answer was prompt “ GO FORWARD NOW, SIR.” I turned to the Brigadier and said in a low voice : There is your answer.
I like this story. It tells us about the mentality of the old Imperial British Regular Army officer : distrust of the “ foreigners “, especially the French. He’s blaming them for the precipitate retirement, isn’t he ? This man is very much in the tradition of his superior commander, Hunter-Weston....push on at all and every cost ! But he also has a rapport with his men, shows personal courage, and conveys his “ can do” attitude to the soldiers and their commanding officers. Here we have testimony to the excruciating moments when chances were wasted....something that, I reckon , implies how the whole operation had a better chance than many would have us believe. The British fighting of those last days of April needs more recognition , too : it wasn’t just an Anzac story.
More about the French later !
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Hi Phil,
Great contributions and I like the idea of the anecdotes from the campaign.
On General William Marshall, he was very much of the old school; lead by example in front of the men and, when in doubt, attack. Perhaps Marshal's urge to attack stemmed from experiences in the Boer War, where he served with the Sherwood Foresters. He would have remembered the despatches from Spion Kop, where after a disastrous fight for the hill the British prematurely relinquished command of the heights after spilling 1600 casualties to get onto it. The Boers were spent, ready to retire and the door to Ladysmith would have been open. Instead, because of perceived lack of resolve in the officers and men on the ground (and lack of oil in the signal lamps), the commanders behind the heights couldn't convey the need to hang on a little longer. Reinforcements were on the way, but it was too late. The defenders streamed down the hills and Buller was beaten back across the Tugela, again.
He may also have remembered Lord Roberts' march on Pretoria, where he let the Boer armies escape encirclement in favour of taking the capital, in the mistaken view that its fall would bring about the surrender of the Boer republics. This decision possibly prolonged the war by two years, and had Roberts listened to his brigade commanders, he may well have wrapped up the war and it wouldn't have ended up a brutal guerrilla campaign.
British military history is littered with instances of defeats being grabbed from the jaws of victory. In this context, he was surely right to insist on pushing on when it felt as though victory was so near.
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote: Trevor....the very name Lancashire Fusiliers conjures up your references to one of your grandfathers. He was there, in this fight, wasn’t he ?
Regards, Phil
I know both survived the landing at W Beach but don´t know about after that. They never talked about it much. My dad said one of the few comments his dad said about Gallipoli was " That f....... Churchill was one f...... a......... and that Weston-(C)Hunter was one as well."
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Colin and Trevor,
Thanks so much for your replies.
They fulfil everything I’m hoping for in my invitation to come to this party.
Colin , you throw light on the experience of a significant commander, and make his account more intelligible.
Trevor, By Jove, you’ve got skin in the game !
What priceless quotes, and what an opening gambit !
Please let me pitch in more from random sources, and if we get anything like the responses you’ve both provided, this is going to be one helluva thread .
Colin, forgive my self aggrandisement: it was you who started this thread, so you’re the host of this party !
Regards,
Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
And a drone view of the battlefield.
[Read More]
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote:
Colin, forgive my self aggrandisement: it was you who started this thread, so you’re the host of this party !
Regards,
Phil
Hi Phil,
Not at all, I’m enjoying your input immensely. Keep it coming!
Cheers,
Colin
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightning
Glasgow
UK
|
Posts: 1040
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Double
----------------------------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Thanks, Trevor.
That works, doesn’t it ?
We get a good sense of the nightmare terrain that confronted the Allies.
I must admit that, at first, I thought it was the same old rendition of how the Anzacs and British were slaughtered and laid low by disease : the concluding caption, however, reminds us that the Ottoman death toll was more than fifty per cent higher than the combined British, Dominion and French losses.
The Turks held the high ground, yes : but what of the price they paid ?
Were they pitting flesh and blood against metal, in much the same way as the Franco British armies were against the Germans in France and Flanders at the same time ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scoucer
Berlin
Germany
|
Posts: 3216
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
|
Quote:
We get a good sense of the nightmare terrain that confronted the Allies.
Regards, Phil
Y Beach, Why Beach ?
To call the thing a beach
is pretty stiff
It´s nothing but a bloody cliff.
Trevor
----------------------------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 797
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
My what if.... if only the Australian's pushed inland and held their gains. Little consolidation of those units that pushed forward meant many were cut off and destroyed.
Too much confusion on the beach with literally hundreds of troops lingering within a few hundred meters of the shore line sheltering in the lower gullies. This really showed the inexperience of some Australian officers by not 'pushing forward' to reinforce the gains already held.
Poor logistics on the crucial first and second days, saw low or exhausted ammunition forcing units back or to be overwhelmed.
WHAT IF!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Wazza,
Do you think that after those crucial opening days, when the big chance was lost, the thing became futile ?
Or did it still offer a decent chance of success until the August offensive failed ?
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 797
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
I think the loss of momentum and critical points of the high ground threw the whole plan for that sector out the window.
All the advantages lay with the defenders. However, they too suffered some critical setbacks in men and more importantly machine guns until this was rectified.
When you read up on the fighting there, it always seems errors in timing, artillery support or poor leadership failed almost like clock work.
This wasn't the terrain for attrition fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Andrade
London
UK
|
Posts: 6369
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Wazza,
Trawling through websites about Gallipoli, I encountered an interesting essay by none other than George Patton, who, whilst a Lt Colonel on the General Staff in Hawai, in the later 1930s, wrote a treatise on the lessons of the Gallipoli campaign.
He made some cogent comments, some of them very unpalatable by today's standards of sensibilities, and made an assessment of the fighting mettle of the protagonists.
Apparently the Turkish troops - and we must remember how many of them were actually Arabs - indulged in the morale boosting activity of firing their rifles into the air, as if to encourage their elan and give a display of bravado.....how often do we see items of news from Syria etc with the people doing just that ?
Patton reckoned that the German commanders were dismayed by this practice, because it wasted precious ammo and gave away too much info about positions and strength etc. To prevent this, the head logs were installed over the Turkish trenches, effectively pinning the defenders in a bad place. In the desperate fighting at Lone Pine, this was to do much to inflate the Ottoman casualty lists.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 797
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
Gallipoli
|
Lone Pine saw scenes of barbaric savagery on both sides in the hand to hand fighting that occurred .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
