Gallipoli Landings - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1148098
March 18th 1915

Today is the 92nd anniversy of the invasion of Gallipoli by the allies during WWI.

I'm posting this thread here in honour of the Australian, British, French, New Zealand and Ottoman/Turkish soldiers who died during the campaign.

Edit: and Irish. (thnx TIG)

Image

Let's discuss Gallipoli and WWI. ;)
Last edited by Doomhammer on 18 Mar 2007 21:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1148199
Quite touching.


Is that view held by the Average Turk?
What is the view of the average Turk (not just the Western friendly Turks on this board) about WW1 and the subsequent disolving of their empire ?

Are the graves ever desicrated? (punishment?)
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1148421
Quite touching.


I am capable of posting something out of genuine sympathy and respect.

Is that view held by the Average Turk?

I don't know. Then again, why the hell would a Turk hate Australians or New Zealenders?

What is the view of the average Turk (not just the Western friendly Turks on this board) about WW1 and the subsequent disolving of their empire ?


What do you think? Is there any point in me answering you?

Are the graves ever desicrated? (punishment?)


What's the point? All cultures are sufficiently "civilized" enough to respect the dead.
Last edited by Doomhammer on 18 Mar 2007 23:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#1148442
Australian, British, French, New Zealand


Don't forget the Irish. The Munsters and Dublin Fusiliers were the first non-ANZACs there and were completely wiped out. The rest of the 10th was decimated at Sulva Bay shortly after.

They led many of the charges, and while everyone else was mentioned, the official report read only "Here the troops wrought miracles,” they failed to mention that it was the Irish who were there. The official report read, “this beach, it was anticipated, would be the most difficult to capture…all were either killed or wounded; only two survivors;...the lighter was soon heaped with the dead.” and it was never mentioned that they were indeed the Irish who were chosen to take the hardest places.

A father wrote to the London Daily Chronicle about the issue,

Sir – one of the things which are felt in Ireland, and it is one of the ways in which the military situation is complicated there, is that, while Irish troops get their share of the hottest work, their achievements as troops do not get a fair share of official recognition…These heaps of corpses on the lighter and in the boats were corpses of the Dublins and Munsters. Will it be believed that Admiral de Robeck in his dispatch, which gives such full mention and such enthusiastic credit to all the other units engaged, does not even mention the names of the Dublins and the Munsters in his account of the taking of the beach!
This is the way the military authorities foster military enthusiasm in Ireland. I could cite many another similar instances.


This was important in Irish history because it further alienated the vast majority of Ireland - who at the time were enthusiastic about being part of the British Empire - and led to a feeling that they were no more than cannon fodder. The public began to turn against England largely as a result of the treatment Irish soldiers received in instances like this.

-TIG :rockon:
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1148471
I honestly didn't know about the Irish taking part in Gallipoli landings. Thanks.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1148506
Neither did I.

This was important in Irish history because it further alienated the vast majority of Ireland - who at the time were enthusiastic about being part of the British Empire - and led to a feeling that they were no more than cannon fodder. The public began to turn against England largely as a result of the treatment Irish soldiers received in instances like this.


Interesting. I had no idea this was a factor in the Irish independence cause.
User avatar
By Cid
#1148538
May the souls of all the soldiers laying in Canakkale rest in peace.

Gallipoli is significant for the development of the national identity of Turkey, Australia and New Zealand. And as we read above it is also significant for the Irish. And I can honestly say that the majority of the people in Turkey shows their respect for those grounds, the Turks regard it almost as a holy ground.
By imagicnation
#1148737
Fine, I'll be the one who points out how the Gallipolis campaign was.
They landed in the wrong spot after having warned the Turks months earlier that they were coming when British ships tried to get rid of the mines and pounding the coast(ended damaging the only good ship they had).
Contrary to Australia's precious cultural obsession with how brave the Aussie diggers where, many New Zealand soldiers tell of how the Australian officers had to shoot their own men to force the rest of the soldiers to land on the beach. Yeah, yeah, horrible conditions, many people would do the same today, yada, yada...they were soldiers, it was their job to kill and/or be killed.
In the end what did it do? Although the Ottomans were weakened, the Allies weren't able to get supplies to and from Russia which the Russians desperately needed...one might even say that the idiocy of the British command meant Russia was kicked out of the war.
It meant Australia had the highest casualties per Capita of population out of the Allies, for what? Virtually nothing.
Now your turn...
By Clausewitz
#1148745
Ataturk was a hardcore badass.

As for the rest, it was a terrible waste out of a war that was full of terrible wastes.

And now I need to see this again:
Image
User avatar
By Potemkin
#1148782
It's ironic that you have Churchill as your avatar, Doomhammer, considering that Gallipoli was Winston's idea in the first place. Another of his 'inspired' strategic interventions in a World War.... :roll:
User avatar
By Thoss
#1148918
Another of his 'inspired' strategic interventions in a World War...


Would not be the last of his bone head peripheral invasions ideas, he tried again with Rhodes in the Second World War. Thankfully the idea was shelved by his own staff and the Americans.
By imagicnation
#1148938
He thought the colossus still existed didn'y he?
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1148948
You people are far to harsh on Churchill. He deserves criticism for NOT getting proper equipment, material, commanders and personal into the field. He also allowed his commanders to much leeway in deciding a landing, yet restructed them to much in its application.

However, the idea of striking the Ottoman empire at its economic heart was a good idea. Had they pressed on they would have taken more losses, ran through the mines, and take valuable land. Its the follow-through he sucked at - not the concept planning.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1148963
:*( God Bless the Turks who were forced to give up their lives because of Allied aggression.
User avatar
By Thoss
#1148968
Its the follow-through he sucked at - not the concept planning.


The concept is vague though - knock Turkey out of the war by simply taking Constantinople? Should the operation been a success, given the position of the Turks, on home turf with merely an expeditionary force in their capital, what motive would they have to give up?

Granted, the operation did realive pressure off the southern Russian front.

God Bless the Turks who were forced to give up their lives because of Allied aggression.


Care to qualify?
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1148994
Care to qualify?


:?:
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1149017
It's ironic that you have Churchill as your avatar, Doomhammer, considering that Gallipoli was Winston's idea in the first place. Another of his 'inspired' strategic interventions in a World War....


Irony is good. Churchill may contradict with many of beliefs; but how can you say no to that adorable picture with the cigar?

God Bless the Turks who were forced to give up their lives because of Allied aggression.

The Ottomans protected a few German ships (which later attacked Russian ports), I guess it's legitimate aggression. :lol: We entered the war willingly I suppose.

The real people who deserve praise are, well YOU guys. Your soldiers sailed half-way round the world, only to fight on some godforsaken rock (and still kick ass).
Last edited by Doomhammer on 19 Mar 2007 17:46, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#1149025
The actual landings were made on the 25th of April 1915.

I believe the 18th of March was when the navy tried to force the straights.


I know. Technically, the begining of the campaign is 18th of March. Bah, anyway, in Turkey they commemorate the campaign on March 18th.
By imagicnation
#1149079
Should the operation been a success, given the position of the Turks, on home turf with merely an expeditionary force in their capital, what motive would they have to give up?

I have read somewhere (in a book though, so I can't give a source) that the bombardments alone sent the citizens of Constantinople/Istanbul in to a frenzy and that if just one ship had even been sighted near the capital the citizens were prepared to march on the Palace and demand peace treaties be signed.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]