Myth: Bumbling British to blame for failed landing

Another myth is that British generals were to blame for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign.

Wrong again, says Professor Stanley. "The first landing was opposed by only about 80 Turks, and the defenders were soon massively out-numbered, but the invaders failed to advance inland as they had been ordered," he says.

He says the Australians' orders were to push on and capture a hill called Maltepe, seven kilometres inland. But the Australian brigadiers got nervous and told their men to dig in on the second ridge, and that's where they stayed for the rest of the eight-month campaign.
Video: British to blame for failed landing: Watch what the experts say about this myth. (ABC News)

Professor Stanley says Australians wanted to blame somebody else for a failure that was basically a failure of Australian command.

Mr Ekins says the then Australian prime minister, Billy Hughes, was among the first to point the finger at the British. In fact, Mr Ekins says, there are multiple reasons for why the campaign failed. "The objectives in the first place, the conception of the whole campaign, was flawed," he says.

Wartime inquiries found the entire campaign had been misconceived from the start and was poorly carried out, resulting in the useless deaths of tens of thousands of allied soldiers.

A 1917 British parliamentary report concluded: "The failure at Anzac was due mainly to the difficulties of the country and the strength of the enemy."

However it also noted that had the British been successful at nearby Suvla, they may have lessened Turkish resistance at Anzac Cove.

Same old, same old..........boring.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

Same old, same old..........boring.

To be honest, I hadn't heard this explanation before that the Aussie commander chose to dig in rather than advance his troops to a position several kilometers inland.

The result was that the troops were locked into a bad spot for the rest of the 8 month campaign.

what a stupid thread.  the british planned and executed the action and it was a monument to everything bad about the british command structure.  The only successful part of the campaign was the retreat which was organised by Monash - an australian

80 Turks would have been over-run in a flash.  I sense bull-shite.  They could never have laid down enough fire to hold their positions.

I notice no link Mr Mitty.

Aussie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

80 Turks would have been over-run in a flash.  I sense bull-shite.  They could never have laid down enough fire to hold their positions. I notice no link Mr Mitty.

There are plenty of good books written on the campaing by actual historians.  it basically details a complete disaster by the british.

I was under the impression that the Aussie officers had been specifically ordered not to act independently, that wasn't acceptable as that was NOT the way the British Army operated, and thus they were only to act upon British orders as a part of a supposedly co-ordinated assault? Wasn't there a section that did actually penetrate some distance and yet were ordered BACK to the beach-head?
I'm no historian so I may well be wrong, if you can enlighten me go right ahead, learning things is part of the reason I joined here.  8-)

Aussie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

80 Turks would have been over-run in a flash.  I sense bull-shite.  They could never have laid down enough fire to hold their positions. I notice no link Mr Mitty.

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:03pm: 80 Turks would have been over-run in a flash.  I sense bull-shite.  They could never have laid down enough fire to hold their positions. I notice no link Mr Mitty. link

Come on Walter.  No mention there about the number of Turks.   Link please.

austranger wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

I was under the impression that the Aussie officers had been specifically ordered not to act independently, that wasn't acceptable as that was NOT the way the British Army operated,

This is answered by the female professor in this short video. Australia's own politicians made the decision to leave it up to the British to command the Aussie troops.

link


austranger wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

I'm no historian so I may well be wrong,

Don't believe for a moment that you should sit humbly at the feet of so-called 'professional historians'. A great many of them are deceitful academic egotists with a barrow to push and an agenda to run.

Where they don't know the answers ~ they 'fictionalise' with guesswork pulled out of their censored.

Aussie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:35pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:28pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:03pm: 80 Turks would have been over-run in a flash.  I sense bull-shite.  They could never have laid down enough fire to hold their positions. I notice no link Mr Mitty. link Come on Walter.  No mention there about the number of Turks.   Link please.

link

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:07pm:

There are plenty of good books written on the campaing by actual historians.  it basically details a complete disaster by the british.

With 'Freedom of Information', and a few brave Australian academics not afraid to be pilloried for daring to go public with the fact that Australians themselves were at fault in several major ways, we can now get a more clear picture that isn't corrupted by one-eyed jingoism and anti-British sentiment.

The first mistake was made even before the first Australian troops left to fight overseas ~~ and that was the Australian politicians voting to leave the military decisions to the British command.

They were under no obligation to do this ~ but they did, and so they must bear some blame for decisions that were consequently made by the Brits.
 

Thanks LH (I can't quote your post with links in it, not here long enough yet).
So I was right in that detail then.
As for the Pro' Historians I guess the answer would be to consult many of them and try to read between the lines then, we can't ask anyone who was there now.

austranger wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:57pm:

Thanks LH (I can't quote your post with links in it, not here long enough yet). So I was right in that detail then. As for the Pro' Historians I guess the answer would be to consult many of them and try to read between the lines then, we can't ask anyone who was there now.

Exactly. It's the one reason why I read and watch 'alternative' sources like Andrew Bolt, Keith Windschuttle, Larry Pickering, and a dozen more.

Use Google to squeeze out the truth from various sources.

I never believe I have reached the final conclusion on any subject. Always, something new pops up that modifies what has already been said.

Best of luck and welcome to the board.

Whoever decided to make a landing in front of a series of crumbling cliff faces with deep valleys in between made the error. And they were poorly supplied also. That would have to be the English high command.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:46pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:35pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:28pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:03pm: 80 Turks would have been over-run in a flash.  I sense bull-shite.  They could never have laid down enough fire to hold their positions. I notice no link Mr Mitty. link Come on Walter.  No mention there about the number of Turks.   Link please. link

You are hiding something, Walter.  There is no way 80 men could lay down a field of fire to subdue the thousands who landed.

Sparky wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 5:06pm:

Whoever decided to make a landing in front of a series of crumbling cliff faces with deep valleys in between made the error. And they were poorly supplied also. That would have to be the English high command.

Agreed.

I meant to title this thread differently, but FD has limited the number of letters that can be used, to way short of the text-bar length.

The British were hugely at fault, but the self-righteous posturing on the part of Australians that none of the Gallipoli tragedy was the fault of Australia's politicians or the Australian military command is way off the truth. (Try to fit that in the above text-bar). I'll have a word with FD about it when he gets back from the fish market. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 5:37pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 5:06pm: Whoever decided to make a landing in front of a series of crumbling cliff faces with deep valleys in between made the error. And they were poorly supplied also. That would have to be the English high command. Agreed. I meant to title this thread differently, but FD has limited the number of letters that can be used, to way short of the text-bar length. The British were hugely at fault, but the self-righteous posturing on the part of Australians that none of the Gallipoli tragedy was the fault of Australia's politicians or the Australian military command is way off the truth. (Try to fit that in the above text-bar). I'll have a word with FD about it when he gets back from the fish market.

I agree with you Herbert. The Australian High Command and pollies should have known what was about to happen. But they were such a bunch of colonial  balllickers at the time that it probably blinded them to the realities. Seeing all this royal boredom happening at the moment only makes me think that it's still alive.

Sounds like a British op, like the Battle of Rorke's Drift where the Supply Officer didn't want to release ammunition without the correct form being filled out.

Forget about the fact that 6,000 Zulus were avalanching towards the few hundred defenders of Rorke's Drift in  the Battle of Ishwandala.

Quote:

I agree with you Herbert. The Australian High Command and pollies should have known what was about to happen.

How funny is that!  Our ballikers (whatever that means) lot were meant to know that the Poms were ballickers!

Okay, I get it.

red baron wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

Sounds like a British op, like the Battle of Rorke's Drift where the Supply Officer didn't want to release ammunition without the correct form being filled out.

Jesus. I didn't know that.

Let's hope they finally wrapped him in red tape when they buried him.


red baron wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

Forget about the fact that 6,000 Zulus were avalanching towards the few hundred defenders of Rorke's Drift in  the Battle of Ishwandala.

What a shocker.

Aussie wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

Quote: I agree with you Herbert. The Australian High Command and pollies should have known what was about to happen. How funny is that!  Our ballikers (whatever that means) lot were meant to know that the Poms were ballickers! Okay, I get it.

So you think a group of people in charge that send the cream of our youth blindly into a massacre shouldn't be described as "balllickers" hmmmmm???

Sparky wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 6:07pm: Quote: I agree with you Herbert. The Australian High Command and pollies should have known what was about to happen. How funny is that!  Our ballikers (whatever that means) lot were meant to know that the Poms were ballickers! Okay, I get it. So you think a group of people in charge that send the cream of our youth blindly into a massacre shouldn't be described as "balllickers" hmmmmm???

That was not your point Elde Fruit.  You blamed Aussie Bosses because you say ~ they did not foresee that handing command of Aussie/Kiwi diggers over to the Poms was an error, which, by force of language means that we were supposed to know they were dick-heads.

Source: United Kingdom Official War Archives:

The Gallipoli campaign

Mired in stalemate on the Western Front, the British war effort required new impetus in early 1915. An attack on the Glossary - opens new windowOttoman empire, which had entered the war on Germany's side on 29 October 1914, quickly emerged as the favoured option. Glossary - opens new windowWinston Churchill, the first lord of the Admiralty, championed the idea of an Anglo-French military operation to force the Glossary - opens new windowDardanelles (the strait separating European Turkey from Asia Minor), seize control of Glossary - opens new windowGallipoli and advance on the Ottoman capital, Glossary - opens new windowConstantinople.

This proposed diversionary expedition had a number of possible benefits. It re-affirmed Britain's support for one of its chief allies, Russia, by diverting Turkish troops from fighting in the Glossary - opens new windowCaucasus - support that was further illustrated by a secret agreement, signed on 20 March 1915, offering Glossary - opens new windowTsar Nicholas II the glittering prize of Constantinople. If successful, the campaign would also bring the Ottoman empire to its knees and encourage Balkan states such as Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the war on the Allied side.

Preparations for Dardanelles - opens new window

Churchill to Kitchener
on Gallipoli preparations



No swift victory
   

The British government was so confident of success, and so contemptuous of Turkish fighting abilities, that it did not envisage having to send any troops ashore on the Gallipoli peninsula. Such arrogance quickly proved misplaced.

Although the naval attack on the Dardanelles on 18 March 1915 was almost successful, the Anglo-French forces ran into an unexpected line of 20 Turkish mines and three battleships were sunk, causing a temporary retreat. Bad weather, combined with the growing desire to land troops on the peninsula, then ended any hopes of a swift victory by naval force alone.


Heavy fighting
   

After more than a month of preparations, British empire and French colonial troops under the overall command of Glossary - opens new windowSir Ian Hamilton landed on the southern tip of the Gallipoli peninsula at Glossary - opens new windowCape Helles and further north at Glossary - opens new windowGaba Tepe on 25 April 1915. Neither landing went to plan.

A navigational error meant that the Australian and New Zealand (Anzac) troops who undertook the Gaba Tepe landing were put ashore in the wrong place. Of the five separate landings at Cape Helles, three were largely unopposed. But the other two, at 'Glossary - opens new windowV Beach' and 'Glossary - opens new windowW Beach', witnessed heavy fighting. Of the 950 men from the Lancashire Fusiliers who landed at 'W Beach', 254 were killed and a further 283 wounded in securing a foothold on the peninsula.

Gallipoli war diary - opens new window

Landing at 'W Beach'
Transcript


Listen to account of 'V Beach' landing:
R B Gillett


Far from providing a rapid military victory over inferior opposition, the Gallipoli campaign quickly turned into another war of attrition, with its own system of trenches and stubborn defensive lines. With German military support, and under the inspired leadership of Glossary - opens new windowMustafa Kemal, Turkish troops ensured that the Allies remained stranded on the two beachheads on which they had initially landed.
A new series of landings at Glossary - opens new windowSuvla Bay on 6 August occasioned further bloody fighting but no breakthrough. Four months later, Glossary - opens new windowWilliam Robertson, the new Glossary - opens new windowChief of the Imperial General Staff and an avowed 'Glossary - opens new windowWesterner', ordered the total evacuation of the Gallipoli peninsula by Allied forces.



The great cost
   

The Gallipoli campaign ensured that the Western Front was given precedence over all other theatres of military operation for the rest of the war. Its failure prompted Churchill's resignation (November 15) and the creation in July 1916 of a parliamentary committee of enquiry into the expedition. Its findings - published a year later - criticised many of the assumptions and actions that had underpinned the campaign.

Dardanelles Commission report: conclusions (517k)
Transcript

Today there are 33 Commonwealth war cemeteries on the Gallipoli peninsula. Two further memorials record the names of the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died there with no known graves. In all, 28,000 Britons, 10,000 Frenchmen, 7,595 Australians, 2,431 New Zealanders and 1,500 Indians were killed in the Allied attempt to seize control of the peninsula. 
The proud Turkish victory, which kept a vital line of communication between Russia and its Western allies closed, came at an even greater cost. A total of 66,000 Turks lost their lives in the defence of Gallipoli; many Turkish army divisions had to rebuilt from scratch in 1916. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 4:07pm: There are plenty of good books written on the campaing by actual historians.  it basically details a complete disaster by the british. With 'Freedom of Information', and a few brave Australian academics not afraid to be pilloried for daring to go public with the fact that Australians themselves were at fault in several major ways, we can now get a more clear picture that isn't corrupted by one-eyed jingoism and anti-British sentiment. The first mistake was made even before the first Australian troops left to fight overseas ~~ and that was the Australian politicians voting to leave the military decisions to the British command. They were under no obligation to do this ~ but they did, and so they must bear some blame for decisions that were consequently made by the Brits.

your understanding of history is woefully inadequate.  in 1914, Australia considered itself foremost part of the british empire and England as the mother country.  Fighting for the British was a natural response and submitting to british command was the natural response.  Australians were going to ware to defend the Mother Country as their top priority.

It is a lot different today.

red baron wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 6:50pm:

Source: United Kingdom Official War Archives: The Gallipoli campaign Mired in stalemate on the Western Front, the British war effort required new impetus in early 1915. An attack on the Glossary - opens new windowOttoman empire, which had entered the war on Germany's side on 29 October 1914, quickly emerged as the favoured option. Glossary - opens new windowWinston Churchill, the first lord of the Admiralty, championed the idea of an Anglo-French military operation to force the Glossary - opens new windowDardanelles (the strait separating European Turkey from Asia Minor), seize control of Glossary - opens new windowGallipoli and advance on the Ottoman capital, Glossary - opens new windowConstantinople. This proposed diversionary expedition had a number of possible benefits. It re-affirmed Britain's support for one of its chief allies, Russia, by diverting Turkish troops from fighting in the Glossary - opens new windowCaucasus - support that was further illustrated by a secret agreement, signed on 20 March 1915, offering Glossary - opens new windowTsar Nicholas II the glittering prize of Constantinople. If successful, the campaign would also bring the Ottoman empire to its knees and encourage Balkan states such as Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the war on the Allied side. Preparations for Dardanelles - opens new window Churchill to Kitchener on Gallipoli preparations No swift victory     The British government was so confident of success, and so contemptuous of Turkish fighting abilities, that it did not envisage having to send any troops ashore on the Gallipoli peninsula. Such arrogance quickly proved misplaced. Although the naval attack on the Dardanelles on 18 March 1915 was almost successful, the Anglo-French forces ran into an unexpected line of 20 Turkish mines and three battleships were sunk, causing a temporary retreat. Bad weather, combined with the growing desire to land troops on the peninsula, then ended any hopes of a swift victory by naval force alone. Heavy fighting     After more than a month of preparations, British empire and French colonial troops under the overall command of Glossary - opens new windowSir Ian Hamilton landed on the southern tip of the Gallipoli peninsula at Glossary - opens new windowCape Helles and further north at Glossary - opens new windowGaba Tepe on 25 April 1915. Neither landing went to plan. A navigational error meant that the Australian and New Zealand (Anzac) troops who undertook the Gaba Tepe landing were put ashore in the wrong place. Of the five separate landings at Cape Helles, three were largely unopposed. But the other two, at 'Glossary - opens new windowV Beach' and 'Glossary - opens new windowW Beach', witnessed heavy fighting. Of the 950 men from the Lancashire Fusiliers who landed at 'W Beach', 254 were killed and a further 283 wounded in securing a foothold on the peninsula. Gallipoli war diary - opens new window Landing at 'W Beach' Transcript Listen to account of 'V Beach' landing: R B Gillett Far from providing a rapid military victory over inferior opposition, the Gallipoli campaign quickly turned into another war of attrition, with its own system of trenches and stubborn defensive lines. With German military support, and under the inspired leadership of Glossary - opens new windowMustafa Kemal, Turkish troops ensured that the Allies remained stranded on the two beachheads on which they had initially landed. A new series of landings at Glossary - opens new windowSuvla Bay on 6 August occasioned further bloody fighting but no breakthrough. Four months later, Glossary - opens new windowWilliam Robertson, the new Glossary - opens new windowChief of the Imperial General Staff and an avowed 'Glossary - opens new windowWesterner', ordered the total evacuation of the Gallipoli peninsula by Allied forces. The great cost     The Gallipoli campaign ensured that the Western Front was given precedence over all other theatres of military operation for the rest of the war. Its failure prompted Churchill's resignation (November 15) and the creation in July 1916 of a parliamentary committee of enquiry into the expedition. Its findings - published a year later - criticised many of the assumptions and actions that had underpinned the campaign. Dardanelles Commission report: conclusions (517k) Transcript Today there are 33 Commonwealth war cemeteries on the Gallipoli peninsula. Two further memorials record the names of the British and Commonwealth soldiers who died there with no known graves. In all, 28,000 Britons, 10,000 Frenchmen, 7,595 Australians, 2,431 New Zealanders and 1,500 Indians were killed in the Allied attempt to seize control of the peninsula.  The proud Turkish victory, which kept a vital line of communication between Russia and its Western allies closed, came at an even greater cost. A total of 66,000 Turks lost their lives in the defence of Gallipoli; many Turkish army divisions had to rebuilt from scratch in 1916.

Well, that was rather a Glossary presentation, but full of open windows. :D

Seriously though, it's a bare-bones British military account and ignores much that seems relevant to Australia today, not that you can fault it for that.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 3:57pm: Same old, same old..........boring. To be honest, I hadn't heard this explanation before that the Aussie commander chose to dig in rather than advance his troops to a position several kilometers inland. The result was that the troops were locked into a bad spot for the rest of the 8 month campaign.

The British ordered the capture of a beach landed area, and they landed the soldiers about a few kilometers away from the actual landing area. Then the British bombed the enemy, in order to allow the Anzacs to get the enemy line, whilst the enemy were in disarray. An Australian officer didn't synchronise his watch with the British naval officer's and he waited until the enemy was able to regroup after the initial bombing. Then the British wanted the Anzacs to take the cove, no matter the cost. It was one big foul up all around, but most of the blame lay with the British.

That is both true and false but there is obvious no intent to bust myths but rather than to muddy the waters and be controversial. I think the whole article is purposely cherry picking to form a controversy.

It is hardly worthwhile to go through and argue the detail but to give two illustrations from the two opening statements.


Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

[i]Myth: Bumbling British to blame for failed landing

The landing was actual a success, the landing been to establish a beachhead.

Indeed I have read in histories that the landing at the wrong beach probably prevented a bloodbath and contributed to the success of establishing the beachhead.

Off the top of my head I can't remember exactly the number opposing the landing in the first minutes and hours, but 80 could be correct. Again I can't from the top of my head recall number but in the first hour they woulld have been reinforced by hundreds and before midday it would have been a thousand plus. Not insignificant given the terrain and the fog of battle.

But to use this number of initial 80 as some sort of evidence that the landing was only lightly opposed and should have succeeded is a nonsense.


Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

Another myth is that British generals were to blame for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign.

Which is absolutely and categorically true.

Security and secrecy was non-existent. The turks knew of the assemble of the invasion fleet, strength ete etc. And just to make sure the Turks knew where they were going to land the Brits did their reccies from battle cruisers sailing up and down the Gallipoli coast.

And that was just the start.

You can explain it, understand it and maybe even forgive the incompetence but it was incompetent.

austranger wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:22pm:

I was under the impression that the Aussie officers had been specifically ordered not to act independently, that wasn't acceptable as that was NOT the way the British Army operated, and thus they were only to act upon British orders as a part of a supposedly co-ordinated assault? Wasn't there a section that did actually penetrate some distance and yet were ordered BACK to the beach-head? I'm no historian so I may well be wrong, if you can enlighten me go right ahead, learning things is part of the reason I joined here.  8-)

One group of Australians penetrated to within sight of the Straits and were not reinforced and were all killed on the spot.  A combination of confusion and first day nerves, and growing Turkish resistance.

The Third Battalion landing at Anzac Cove first lost one man on the beach, but was not ordered to advance until the follow-up landings, but to hold and then allow following battalions to 'leap-frog' inland.  Fairly sensible and SOP, but not allowing for freedom of movement to suit conditions and resistance.

At Suvla Bay the commanders failed to secure the two prominent features on day one as was planned and then were pinned down permanently by Turks occupying the same heights.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 5:37pm:

Sparky wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 5:06pm: Whoever decided to make a landing in front of a series of crumbling cliff faces with deep valleys in between made the error. And they were poorly supplied also. That would have to be the English high command. Agreed. I meant to title this thread differently, but FD has limited the number of letters that can be used, to way short of the text-bar length. The British were hugely at fault, but the self-righteous posturing on the part of Australians that none of the Gallipoli tragedy was the fault of Australia's politicians or the Australian military command is way off the truth. (Try to fit that in the above text-bar). I'll have a word with FD about it when he gets back from the fish market.

Well, whoever was at fault also, overnight, elevated teenage warrior boys into Greek heroes. An instant apotheosis not often recorded in a nation's history.

And thus, we have our great national myth... And a national psyche, which had incidentally evolved to elevate to godhood only the secular, now, once again, has its sense of the sacred reestablished... Crowned with its Irish sense of heroism - Glorious defeat.

Of course Gallipoli was the fault of the British -

sending men into a perfect shooting zone where only a few Turks could see & fire upon them mercilessly.

It was an ambush & the soldiers were sitting ducks.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

Of course Gallipoli was the fault of the British - sending men into a perfect shooting zone where only a few Turks could see & fire upon them mercilessly. It was an ambush & the soldiers were sitting ducks.

With the added misfortune of battling against one of Turkey's greatest modern day military leaders and hero... Ataturk.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 8:01am: Of course Gallipoli was the fault of the British - sending men into a perfect shooting zone where only a few Turks could see & fire upon them mercilessly. It was an ambush & the soldiers were sitting ducks. With the added misfortune of battling against one of Turkey's greatest modern day military leaders and hero... Ataturk.

Yes - the only way to land in Gallipoli was to send in commandos
in the night to take out all the well entrenched Turkish firing positions overlooking the beaches first.

If that was not successful then the landings should have been called off.

Stupid POMs - sending our men into a shooting gallery.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:39am:

Well, whoever was at fault also, overnight, elevated teenage warrior boys into Greek heroes. An instant apotheosis not often recorded in a nation's history. And thus, we have our great national myth... And a national psyche, which had incidentally evolved to elevate to godhood only the secular, now, once again, has its sense of the sacred reestablished... Crowned with its Irish sense of heroism - Glorious defeat.

I think it might have been that following upon this disastrous defeat that cost so many Australian lives for absolutely no gain at all, there was a pressing need to make their loved ones feel they had not died in vain.

And so a glorious mythology was born. It made the pointless loss of so many lives a little more bearable for those they left behind.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

Stupid POMs - sending our men into a shooting gallery.

Correct!

But let's introduce a little perspective here regarding the 'Poms'.

Australians and New Zealanders will this week remember the sacrifice and courage of their forebears at Gallipoli 90 years ago, but few will realise that far more British soldiers died in the ill-fated campaign.

While British generals get the blame for sending innocent Australians to their deaths at Gallipoli, more than 21,000 of their own soldiers died and another 198,000 were wounded.

A total of 8,709 Australians died and 2,707 New Zealanders gave up their lives in the campaign which successive generations of Australians and New Zealanders grew up believing they were the only ones there.

While the Anzacs were landing at Ari Burnu on April 25, 1915, British forces were wading ashore under intense fire on six beaches at the southern tip of the Gallipoli peninsula at Helles.

The Helles landings were every bit as fatal and futile as what the Australians experienced 20 kilometres to the north.

Turkish documentary maker Tolga Ornek's film Gallipoli premiered this month portraying a view of the campaign from Australian, New Zealand, British and Turkish eyes.

"The British high command is worthy of almost every blame. The government, the politicians, the generals," Ornek said.

"But the (British) soldiers I think deserve as much respect as the Anzacs and the Turks.

"The irony is that among all the allied troops, the highest casualties were the British and everywhere in the world, people think the Anzac casualties were the worst, including the Turks."

link

Bobby ~ always seek to find the truth behind what the propagandists would have you believe.  :)

A lot of the anti-Pommy sentiment so beloved of Australians since those times grew out of the propagandised myth that the English were safely tucked up in their beds while the Aussies were getting slaughtered on the cliffs of Gallipoli.

Quote:

Bobby ~ always seek to find the truth behind what the propagandists would have you believe.

 

I am well aware of British casualties.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:58am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 7:39am: Well, whoever was at fault also, overnight, elevated teenage warrior boys into Greek heroes. An instant apotheosis not often recorded in a nation's history. And thus, we have our great national myth... And a national psyche, which had incidentally evolved to elevate to godhood only the secular, now, once again, has its sense of the sacred reestablished... Crowned with its Irish sense of heroism - Glorious defeat. I think it might have been that following upon this disastrous defeat that cost so many Australian lives for absolutely no gain at all, there was a pressing need to make their loved ones feel they had not died in vain. And so a glorious mythology was born. It made the pointless loss of so many lives a little more bearable for those they left behind.

And its greatest legacy, the continuing commemoration of the ANZAC legend at Gallipoli, by both the victorious and the vanquished, is a testament to the good will between former enemies that is unequaled anywhere in the world. Its endurance prophetically given voice by the great Ataturk himself :


Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

 

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:16am:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours... you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

It's a very noble speech. One of the best.

Quote:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives..

They were poor soldiers who were sacrificed on a ridiculous mission.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

Quote: Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives.. They were poor soldiers who were sacrificed on a ridiculous mission.

War is a ridiculous mission.

Reconciliation and kindled friendship after battle being the greatest of reasons to commemorate war at all.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

Quote: Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives.. They were poor soldiers who were sacrificed on a ridiculous mission.

t wasn't the first and wasn't the last.  Nor will it be the last.  War is neither glorious nor noble. Alas, it sometimes becomes necessary just the same.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:32am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:26am: Quote: Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives.. They were poor soldiers who were sacrificed on a ridiculous mission. War is a ridiculous mission. Reconciliation and kindled friendship after battle being the greatest of reasons to commemorate war at all.

And we haven't learnt -
as we speak The Russians are ready to invade the Ukraine region.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:32am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:26am: Quote: Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives.. They were poor soldiers who were sacrificed on a ridiculous mission. War is a ridiculous mission. Reconciliation and kindled friendship after battle being the greatest of reasons to commemorate war at all. And we haven't learnt - as we speak The Russians are ready to invade the Ukraine region.

FIRST GRAVE: It will make our heap of stones for ever England, apparently.
SECOND GRAVE: It can scarcely do that to my portion of it. I was a Turk.
FIRST GRAVE: What! A Turk! You a Turk? And I have lain beside you for seven years and never known!
SECOND GRAVE: How should you have known? What is there to know except that I am your brother?
FIRST GRAVE: I am yours...
SECOND GRAVE: All is dead except that . All graves are one. It is their unity that sanctifies them, and some day even the living will learn this.
FIRST GRAVE: Ah, but why can they not learn it while they are still alive?

http://www.daclarke.org/oped/Forster.html

I always thought the brits saved their soldiers and sacrificed their loyal commonwealth subjects.

As far as I know that was the way of it.

Of course the brits would be quick to dispel these actions as shear nonsense.

wrong war same perpetrators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjUrib_Gh0Y

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:32am:

War is a ridiculous mission.

You got that out of a Fortune Cookie or a Christmas cracker, didn't you?

Cheap and superficial.

WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people.

War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships.

(I'm putting you in the Naughty Corner, helian, until you make a sincere apology, and convince me that you are tearfully remorseful for having blurted out that ill-conceived utterance).  8-)

I went to kings park dawn service: not as big as some years gone by...

Unfortunately such perversions as war being a vote winner are reality!

THIS IS GROUPTHINK in a pistachio shell perhaps???

... Oh, yeh- forgot to tell ya... Had pistachios and beer and scones and cream and oh yeh a more local dawn service attended by my nan(96) and watched some 7yo kid play the violin...

Pretty cool

THE REASON I am a monarchist is because I think independence has knobs all over it. As someone has previously pointed out- maybe the grappler knight  :-? - monopoly and what is close to it has precedence. I ask myself if people want a knew flag just to wage a pointless war under??

I ask if the English really wanted us Aussies to die and conclude no of course not and with this sad source of forgiving strength the future can be forged and conclude most probably yes....

Confused, and possibly pigeon holed as conservative opinion, I conclude the monarchy is ok.

Basically, I don't see the point in going rogue just because of nasty life causing awkwardness and that this be the strength... That the anger be recycled into positivity... The negativity learned from all the more by not changing flags!  :)

Ajax wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

I always thought the brits saved their soldiers and sacrificed their loyal commonwealth subjects. As far as I know that was the way of it. Of course the brits would be quick to dispel these actions as shear nonsense. wrong war same perpetrators. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjUrib_Gh0Y

Therefore you are a republican?

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 11:05am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:32am: War is a ridiculous mission. You got that out of a Fortune Cookie or a Christmas cracker, didn't you? Cheap and superficial. WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people. War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships. (I'm putting you in the Naughty Corner, helian, until you make a sincere apology, and convince me that you are tearfully remorseful for having blurted out that ill-conceived utterance).  8-)

While I respect our young men and women who sacrificed themselves in time of war.

What we should really be asking is who put these tyrants in such high places to start with.

Then war might seem quite different to what is envisaged by most of us.

The Shock Doctrine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW1SHPgUAQ

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

[quote author=bobbythebat1 link=1398405363/32#32 date=1398464269]propagandised myth that the English were safely tucked up in their beds while the Aussies were getting slaughtered on the cliffs of Gallipoli.

   I'd say that result was a product of the British leadership still locked into using 18th century tactics, and the Pommie grunts not having enough sense to keep their heads down as the ANZACS were inclined to do.
   It was much the same everywhere in WWI, an aging and nepotistic leadership not realising the efficiency and killing capacity of Industrialised Warfare and using outmoded tactics.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 8:17am: Stupid POMs - sending our men into a shooting gallery. Correct! But let's introduce a little perspective here regarding the 'Poms'. Australians and New Zealanders will this week remember the sacrifice and courage of their forebears at Gallipoli 90 years ago, but few will realise that far more British soldiers died in the ill-fated campaign. While British generals get the blame for sending innocent Australians to their deaths at Gallipoli, more than 21,000 of their own soldiers died and another 198,000 were wounded. A total of 8,709 Australians died and 2,707 New Zealanders gave up their lives in the campaign which successive generations of Australians and New Zealanders grew up believing they were the only ones there. While the Anzacs were landing at Ari Burnu on April 25, 1915, British forces were wading ashore under intense fire on six beaches at the southern tip of the Gallipoli peninsula at Helles. The Helles landings were every bit as fatal and futile as what the Australians experienced 20 kilometres to the north. Turkish documentary maker Tolga Ornek's film Gallipoli premiered this month portraying a view of the campaign from Australian, New Zealand, British and Turkish eyes. "The British high command is worthy of almost every blame. The government, the politicians, the generals," Ornek said. "But the (British) soldiers I think deserve as much respect as the Anzacs and the Turks. "The irony is that among all the allied troops, the highest casualties were the British and everywhere in the world, people think the Anzac casualties were the worst, including the Turks." Bobby ~ always seek to find the truth behind what the propagandists would have you believe.  :) A lot of the anti-Pommy sentiment so beloved of Australians since those times grew out of the propagandised myth that the English were safely tucked up in their beds while the Aussies were getting slaughtered on the cliffs of Gallipoli.

I'd say that result was a product of the British leadership still locked into using 18th century tactics, and the Pommie grunts not having enough sense to keep their heads down as the ANZACS were inclined to do.
   It was much the same everywhere in WWI, an aging and nepotistic leadership not realising the efficiency and killing capacity of Industrialised Warfare and using outmoded tactics.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 11:05am:

WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people. War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships.

WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:25pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 11:05am: WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people. War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships. WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated.

Apologist nonsense.

Germany was the aggressor. Period.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 12:25pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 11:05am: WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people. War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships. WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated. Apologist nonsense. Germany was the aggressor. Period.

By the manipulation of alliances (to isolate Germany) Edward VII created the conditions that later Sir Edward Grey was able to declare war of Germany after having assured the kaiser that Britain had no quarrel with Germany.

Grey failed to warn Germany that Britain would stand with France and Russia. Of course he did not suggest to France and Russia that Britain would remain neutral.

At it end, the Treaty of Versailles included the false statement that Germany was the sole aggressor and demanded $32 billion in war reparations and interest, thereby bankrupting Germany for nearly 15 years.

The graves of the politicians who sent the men to Gallipoli should
be disinterred & their skeletons whipped in public.

( just like the start of the movie " The Pit & the Pendulum" )

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

The graves of the politicians who sent the men to Gallipoli should be disinterred & their skeletons whipped in public. ( just like the start of the movie " The Pit & the Pendulum" )

Just like they did with Oliver Cromwell after the Restoration??!!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:

By the manipulation of alliances (to isolate Germany) Edward VII created the conditions that later Sir Edward Grey was able to declare war of Germany after having assured the kaiser that Britain had no quarrel with Germany. Grey failed to warn Germany that Britain would stand with France and Russia. Of course he did not suggest to France and Russia that Britain would remain neutral. At it end, the Treaty of Versailles included the false statement that Germany was the sole aggressor and demanded $32 billion in war reparations and interest, thereby bankrupting Germany for nearly 15 years.

Correction:

link

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:25pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 11:05am: WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people. War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships. WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated.

simplistic and blessed with hindsight.  But since when does isolation justify invasion and slaughter .  and then 20 years later, they did it again.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 8:17am: Stupid POMs - sending our men into a shooting gallery. Correct! But let's introduce a little perspective here regarding the 'Poms'. Australians and New Zealanders will this week remember the sacrifice and courage of their forebears at Gallipoli 90 years ago, but few will realise that far more British soldiers died in the ill-fated campaign. While British generals get the blame for sending innocent Australians to their deaths at Gallipoli, more than 21,000 of their own soldiers died and another 198,000 were wounded. A total of 8,709 Australians died and 2,707 New Zealanders gave up their lives in the campaign which successive generations of Australians and New Zealanders grew up believing they were the only ones there. While the Anzacs were landing at Ari Burnu on April 25, 1915, British forces were wading ashore under intense fire on six beaches at the southern tip of the Gallipoli peninsula at Helles. The Helles landings were every bit as fatal and futile as what the Australians experienced 20 kilometres to the north. Turkish documentary maker Tolga Ornek's film Gallipoli premiered this month portraying a view of the campaign from Australian, New Zealand, British and Turkish eyes. "The British high command is worthy of almost every blame. The government, the politicians, the generals," Ornek said. "But the (British) soldiers I think deserve as much respect as the Anzacs and the Turks. "The irony is that among all the allied troops, the highest casualties were the British and everywhere in the world, people think the Anzac casualties were the worst, including the Turks." link Bobby ~ always seek to find the truth behind what the propagandists would have you believe.  :) A lot of the anti-Pommy sentiment so beloved of Australians since those times grew out of the propagandised myth that the English were safely tucked up in their beds while the Aussies were getting slaughtered on the cliffs of Gallipoli.

Well - what about Krythia - in which the Australian Second Brigade participated?  Ordered to advance across a MILE of open space into the teeth of massed rifle, machine gun and artillery fire.

Many a good Tommy and poilu died there along with too many Australians.

The sacrifices of the British and Irish soldier (see the River Clyde) should not be used when considering the values and virtues of their commanders.

Two separate issues - nobody condemns the Tommy..... only his 'masters'...

Kitchener himself advocated against Gallipoli - he wanted to land on the relatively open ground near ancient Troy and cut the Turkish Empire in two..

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:13pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 12:51pm: By the manipulation of alliances (to isolate Germany) Edward VII created the conditions that later Sir Edward Grey was able to declare war of Germany after having assured the kaiser that Britain had no quarrel with Germany. Grey failed to warn Germany that Britain would stand with France and Russia. Of course he did not suggest to France and Russia that Britain would remain neutral. At it end, the Treaty of Versailles included the false statement that Germany was the sole aggressor and demanded $32 billion in war reparations and interest, thereby bankrupting Germany for nearly 15 years. Correction: link

http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/king-edward-vii-of-great-britain-evil-demiurge-of-the-triple-entente-and-world-war-1/

bump

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:

Two separate issues - nobody condemns the Tommy..... only his 'masters'...

Nice piece of editorialising there, Grappler, but not true.

The term 'Pommy bastards' grew out of the mythology which taught generations of Aussie kids that 'the English' had no involvement in the Gallipoli campaign except as politicians and commanders.

How many generational Aussie kids since then have been told that nearly 3 times the number of Aussie Diggers who died in that very same campaign were your iconic 'Pommy bastards'?

I'll venture a guess: Sweet bugger all.

Such knowledge would have greatly diluted the general attitude that the English are 'Pommy bastards'.

Hitler needed the Jews, and Australia needed it's villains: The generic Britisher.

Quote:

How many generational Aussie kids since then have been told that nearly 3 times the number of Aussie Diggers who died in that very same campaign were your iconic 'Pommy bastards'?

So, you no longer maintain that of the Australian Diggers, there were thousands (or whatever quantity you claimed) of Poms?

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 12:25pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 11:05am: WW1 and WW2 were fought to put would-be tyrants back in their box, and to restore the independence of sovereign nations, and to preserve the democratic freedoms enjoyed by millions of people. War is the only way to defeat imperialist dictatorships. WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated. Apologist nonsense. Germany was the aggressor. Period.

Is it not indirect attack- or passive aggressive- to isolate!??!

:o

Well - it's proportional - Australia had the highest Allied rate of casualties...... that sort of tends to give us a privilege of looking down our colonial noses at others.

However - I will point out that the United states, in only three months or so of active combat - sustained 50,000 casualties... that's one hell of a lot...

This'll entertain yez while I go off to work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyJwtC8kwJM

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 12:52pm: The graves of the politicians who sent the men to Gallipoli should be disinterred & their skeletons whipped in public. ( just like the start of the movie " The Pit & the Pendulum" ) Just like they did with Oliver Cromwell after the Restoration??!!

I didn't know that.
It must have been a common procedure in those days.

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1398405363/64#64 date=1398490215]Well - it's proportional - Australia had the highest Allied rate of casualties...... that sort of tends to give us a privilege of looking down our colonial noses at others.

However - I will point out that the United states, in only three months or so of active combat - sustained 50,000 casualties... that's one hell of a lot...

This'll entertain yez while I go off to work...



The Yanks were late to the party, Germany was already on the point of collapse and the Yankee officer class wanted to get as much individual glory as they could as fast as they could, and they sacrificed their men wholesale to achieve that disgusting goal.
If you really want a twisted history, ask an average American about their nation's role in WWI. That they won it single-handed is just the start of their mythology!  :o

[quote author=The_Grappler link=1398405363/64#64 date=1398490215]Well - it's proportional - Australia had the highest Allied rate of casualties...... that sort of tends to give us a privilege of looking down our colonial noses at others.

However - I will point out that the United states, in only three months or so of active combat - sustained 50,000 casualties... that's one hell of a lot...

This'll entertain yez while I go off to work...



The Yanks were late to the party, Germany was already on the point of collapse and the Yankee officer class wanted to get as much individual glory as they could as fast as they could, and they sacrificed their men wholesale to achieve that disgusting goal.
If you really want a twisted history, ask an average American about their nation's role in WWI. That they won it single-handed is just the start of their mythology!  Shocked

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:01am:

sending men into a perfect shooting zone where only a few Turks could see & fire upon them mercilessly. It was an ambush & the soldiers were sitting ducks.

The landing at Anzac Cove was a mistaken. For whatever reasons (current and tide or stuff up) the actually landing was one mile north of the intended landing site. So calling it a stuff up "sending men into a perfect shooting zone" is completely wrong.

To call "It was an ambush" is completely wrong. The Turks did not expect anyone to land at Anzac Cove - even their military didn't identify it as a likely landing spot and therefore did not site their main defence there. The 80 or so Turks in the immediate location were a covering force meant to do exactly as they did  - give warning and delay the enemy until greater force could be deployed.

So the battle of the landing was the Australian 'advancing to contact' (not know exactly where the enemy was) and the Turk adjusting their defence to an attack coming from an unexpected direction.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 8:17am:

Yes - the only way to land in Gallipoli was to send in commandos been called off.

There were no such thing as commandos in 1914 in concept or fact, so that was going to happen.

You have to remember we are talking 100 years ago and the British Army was not a professional homogeneous force that meets that description today.

The British Army was a far flung organisation that was more a collection of individual regiments with very different traditions and standards and very little experience nor organisation at any level to work in large divisional, corp and army level operations.

And that description and realization to true for the BEF in 1914-15 as it does for the Gallipoli force.

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 8:17am: Yes - the only way to land in Gallipoli was to send in commandos been called off. There were no such thing as commandos in 1914 in concept or fact, so that was going to happen. You have to remember we are talking 100 years ago and the British Army was not a professional homogeneous force that meets that description today. The British Army was a far flung organisation that was more a collection of individual regiments with very different traditions and standards and very little experience nor organisation at any level to work in large divisional, corp and army level operations. And that description and realization to true for the BEF in 1914-15 as it does for the Gallipoli force.

The British fought Boer commandos during the Boer War. The concept was well known in 1914.

[quote author=Sparky link=1398405363/70#70 date=1398506349]The British fought Boer commandos during the Boer War. The concept was well known in 1914.
[/quote]

Commando was in deed  first used to describe a military unit by the Boers but it did not describe any type of Special Forces. Boer Commandos were more militia/irregular/guerrilla type operation. The word probably moved in to the English language because of the long distance raiding done by the Boers.

The first steps towards Special Forces during WW1 was probably the German Storm Troopers who were specially selected, specially trained, specially equipped and specifically deployed from 1917 onwards.

There were no commando or special forces availble to Britain or any other military force in A[pril 1914. They didn't exist in concept or fact.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

Well - it's proportional - Australia had the highest Allied rate of casualties...... that sort of tends to give us a privilege of looking down our colonial noses at others.

Don't give us that crap.

Spin-doctoring 8,000 Aussies dead to Britain's 21,000 for the sake of winning a sick oneupmanship competition is pretty damn tasteless.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:16am:

And its greatest legacy, the continuing commemoration of the ANZAC legend at Gallipoli, by both the victorious and the vanquished, is a testament to the good will between former enemies that is unequaled anywhere in the world.

I'm not so sure about the "unequaled" but most certainly there was grudging respect between the two foes. The Anzacs referred to the Turks as Johnny Turk or Abdul.

They also fraternized during truces and burial in no-mans land, and exchanged goods by throwing oranges and onions from the Turks for tins of jam and bully beef from the Aussies.

The common soldier on both sides recognised the shared agony of the conditions and climate of the trenches. They also recognised the bravery and stupidity and the discipline of the other in obeying mindless orders and charges.

But it didn't stop either side from cutting down the other and showing no quarter in battle.

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

The landing at Anzac Cove was a mistake. For whatever reasons (current and tide or stuff up) the actually landing was one mile north of the intended landing site. So calling it a stuff up "sending men into a perfect shooting zone" is completely wrong.

Correct.

But as this throws a measure of blame back onto Australians themselves, this Inconvenient Truth will be quickly brushed aside and forgotten.

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:05pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:16am: And its greatest legacy, the continuing commemoration of the ANZAC legend at Gallipoli, by both the victorious and the vanquished, is a testament to the good will between former enemies that is unequaled anywhere in the world.   I'm not so sure about the "unequaled" but most certainly there was grudging respect between the two foes. The Anzacs referred to the Turks as Johnny Turk or Abdul. They also fraternized during truces and burial in no-mans land, and exchanged goods by throwing oranges and onions from the Turks for tins of jam and bully beef from the Aussies. The common soldier on both sides recognised the shared agony of the conditions and climate of the trenches. They also recognised the bravery and stupidity and the discipline of the other in obeying mindless orders and charges. But it didn't stop either side from cutting down the other and showing no quarter in battle.

I was referring to the ANZAC legacy... Referring to its enduring commemoration at Gallipoli  by Australia, New Zealand, Britain, etc and Turkey.

.

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 8:17am: Yes - the only way to land in Gallipoli was to send in commandos been called off. There were no such thing as commandos in 1914 in concept or fact, so that was going to happen. You have to remember we are talking 100 years ago and the British Army was not a professional homogeneous force that meets that description today. The British Army was a far flung organisation that was more a collection of individual regiments with very different traditions and standards and very little experience nor organisation at any level to work in large divisional, corp and army level operations. And that description and realization to true for the BEF in 1914-15 as it does for the Gallipoli force.

My full text was:


Quote:

Yes - the only way to land in Gallipoli was to send in commandos in the night to take out all the well entrenched Turkish firing positions overlooking the beaches first. If that was not successful then the landings should have been called off. Stupid POMs - sending our men into a shooting gallery.

They needed to take out the enemy positions silently.
Only commandos can do that.

They must have had some force like that  -
if not the British should have trained an elite force to do the job.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:01pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Well - it's proportional - Australia had the highest Allied rate of casualties...... that sort of tends to give us a privilege of looking down our colonial noses at others. Don't give us that crap. Spin-doctoring 8,000 Aussies dead to Britain's 21,000 for the sake of winning a sick oneupmanship competition is pretty damn tasteless.

I'm not certain of the Gallipoli campaign but I think the claim of the highest proportional loses apply to the total losses for WW1.

It would be interesting to know the comparison but my guess would be for the Gallipoli campaign the Brits would have lost a greater absolute number and a great proportion of deaths to numbers deployed.

The poor old Poms didn't just have to suffer the stupidity of the overall fiasco but also suffered from the gross stupidity and incompetence of the local commander Lieutenant-General Sir Aylmer Gould Hunter-Weston, the original and archetype donkey general.

The Anzac's had a Pom in command, Gen Birdwood, but he had redeeming feature (as did other Brit Generals - the Brits had some of the best and some of the worst of WW1). The Australian citizen soldier officers at brigade level and below did a much better job of caring and protecting their men in all issues from hygiene to tactically then many of the British officers..

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:06pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 7:32pm: The landing at Anzac Cove was a mistake. For whatever reasons (current and tide or stuff up) the actually landing was one mile north of the intended landing site. So calling it a stuff up "sending men into a perfect shooting zone" is completely wrong. Correct. But as this throws a measure of blame back onto Australians themselves, this Inconvenient Truth will be quickly brushed aside and forgotten.

How does that throw any responsibility of the failure of the campaign on to the Australians?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 12:25pm:

WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated.

BS. Although Germany protested 'encirclement' and probably believed and acted on that belief it was not factual.

In July 1914 the diplomatic situation in Europe was a Balance of Power (and essentially Mutually Assured Destruction) which had been the widely supported diplomatic aim of ALL European powers since the fall of Napoleon.

The biggest changes that was reducing Germany's perceived power were changing economic and social changes and not diplomatic changes.

Specifically the rise in importance of Industry and the declining in importance of agriculture. These changes favoured Britain, France and Russia and disadvantaged Germany, AH and Turkey. Essentially Germany's two allies AH and Turkey were agricultural and trading powers and not industrial powers were losing economic strength and political and military power to the point that Turkey was known as the "sick man of Europe".

There may have been a need to re-balance and realign with new treaties and alliances and there were opportunities to do such.  Britain in particular would have been receptive to a re-balancing. Britain had an uneasy Entente with France and Russia which was signed more out of need rather than conviction.

(Edward VII had a zero role in British politics or diplomacy, and no influence or responsibility).

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 10:13pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 12:25pm: WW 1 may not have happened if real statesmen, instead of Edward VII, had engineered alliances and not forged a Europe that left Germany isolated. (Edward VII had a zero role in British politics or diplomacy, and no influence or responsibility).

Edward VII had 40+ years to encourage alliances with his crowned nephews and with British and continental politicians and heads of state. He meddled in European affairs to the end of his life and set the agenda for German isolation that persisted after his death.

Prior to German unification, Russia was the target for Edward VII.

A hundred years on, China is where Germany was then.

Will China start a war?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

They needed to take out the enemy positions silently. Only commandos can do that. They must have had some force like that  - if not the British should have trained an elite force to do the job.

Elite/Special forces are not used for missions of this scale then or now. Elite/Special forces might be used for stealthy reccies and/or the seize and hold of key points for short periods (1-4 hours) before the main force arrived.

But that capacity did not exist in fact nor concept in 1914.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 10:24pm:

Edward VII had 40+ years to encourage alliances with his crowned nephews and with British and continental politicians and heads of state. He meddled in European affairs to the end of his life and set the agenda for German isolation that persisted after his death. Prior to German unification, Russia was the target for Edward VII.

If you say so  ::)

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 7:04am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:16pm: They needed to take out the enemy positions silently. Only commandos can do that. They must have had some force like that  - if not the British should have trained an elite force to do the job. Elite/Special forces are not used for missions of this scale then or now. Elite/Special forces might be used for stealthy reccies and/or the seize and hold of key points for short periods (1-4 hours) before the main force arrived. But that capacity did not exist in fact nor concept in 1914.

Well it should have existed -
they treated their troops as canon fodder.



Quote:

Elite/Special forces are not used for missions of this scale then or now.

Rubbish - that's what commandos do.

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:25pm:

The Anzac's had a Pom in command,

A quick reminder: The Australian government had voted to let the Australian soldiers be under the command of the British. It was entirely at the discretion of the Australian government that the soldiers were not under Australian command.

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 9:40pm:

How does that throw any responsibility of the failure of the campaign on to the Australians?

Australian navy personnel were in the bridge of the leading ship which dropped anchor in the wrong place, with its consequent tragedies.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 7:33am:

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 7:04am: Elite/Special forces are not used for missions of this scale then or now. Rubbish - that's what commandos do.

Correct.

The rough terrain and steep topography was exactly suited to SAS-style initial reconnoitering and the establishing of a security perimeter for the bulk of the landing parties.

You're on a roll, Sir Bobby.  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:34am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 7:33am: OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 7:04am: Elite/Special forces are not used for missions of this scale then or now. Rubbish - that's what commandos do. Correct. The rough terrain and steep topography was exactly suited to SAS-style initial reconnoitering and the establishing of a security perimeter for the bulk of the landing parties. You're on a roll, Sir Bobby.  :)

Thanks Lord Herbert.
If I was a general in command I would not lead my men into battle unless
I was sure they could win.

This surety could only be assured if the Turkish defenses were removed first.

bummer

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:41am:

Thanks Lord Herbert. If I was a general in command I would not lead my men into battle unless I was sure they could win. This surety could only be assured if the Turkish defenses were removed first.

The unfortunate difference between the British command and the Australian command was that the British could buy their commissions as officers if they had an Oxford accent, while the Aussie command was determined by meritocracy only.

OldCrusty has been making some good points though. He tripped over his walking-stick with regard to commandos not being suited for the Gallipoli campaign, but otherwise he's been making a lot of good sense. To err is human ....  Let's not throw OldCrusty out with the bath water. :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:47am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 8:41am: Thanks Lord Herbert. If I was a general in command I would not lead my men into battle unless I was sure they could win. This surety could only be assured if the Turkish defenses were removed first. The unfortunate difference between the British command and the Australian command was that the British could buy their commissions as officers if they had an Oxford accent, while the Aussie command was determined by meritocracy only. OldCrusty has been making some good points though.

That's why the British commanders need to be disinterred & their skeletons whipped
just as the Catholic Inquisition did.

Sparky wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 7:41pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 8:17am: Yes - the only way to land in Gallipoli was to send in commandos been called off. There were no such thing as commandos in 1914 in concept or fact, so that was going to happen. You have to remember we are talking 100 years ago and the British Army was not a professional homogeneous force that meets that description today. The British Army was a far flung organisation that was more a collection of individual regiments with very different traditions and standards and very little experience nor organisation at any level to work in large divisional, corp and army level operations. And that description and realization to true for the BEF in 1914-15 as it does for the Gallipoli force. The British fought Boer commandos during the Boer War. The concept was well known in 1914.

Yes - but not in its present concept of small bodies of men operating to inflict as much damage as possible etc.

Boer commandos were irregular call-outs of the 'home guard' and ranged the veldt.  Commandos as evolved in WW II are/were essentially light infantry intended to move fast, hit and run.

A better approximation to the Boer commando is an Afghani muj.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:53am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 8:47am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 8:41am: Thanks Lord Herbert. If I was a general in command I would not lead my men into battle unless I was sure they could win. This surety could only be assured if the Turkish defenses were removed first. The unfortunate difference between the British command and the Australian command was that the British could buy their commissions as officers if they had an Oxford accent, while the Aussie command was determined by meritocracy only. OldCrusty has been making some good points though. That's why the British commanders need to be disinterred & their skeletons whipped just as the Catholic Inquisition did.

Australia had the highest rate of officer risen through the ranks.  That attitude persists to this day in some way in the Army - officers are the product of a training in military history and academic method - sergeants are the product of experience, and a wise young officer heeds his/her sergeant's advice.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

OldnCrusty wrote on Apr 26th, 2014 at 9:25pm: The Anzac's had a Pom in command, A quick reminder: The Australian government had voted to let the Australian soldiers be under the command of the British. It was entirely at the discretion of the Australian government that the soldiers were not under Australian command.

In military parlance 'under command' or 'in command of' means the commanding formations has total responsibility for the unit under it's command.

Australians have not been put under command of a foreign  power since the Boer War. We have been allies and our troops have been 'in support' but have always remained under command of the Australian Govt.

You can thank Breaker Morant and his two colleagues for this. Breaker and colleagues were Australian soldiers, raised and trained in Australia and paid by Australia but put under British command in South Africa.

There was an event which resulted in the Australians been charged with murder and courtmarshalled by the British, under British military law with British officers presiding. There were found guilty and shot. The only Australian soldiers ever shot by firing squad for a military offence.

Breaker and his mates claimed they were 'following orders' and the Australian Govt and people believed them. But the Australian govt could nothing legally to stop the execution because legally they had been put under command of the British and were the British legal responsibility.

And the Australian Govt and people went 'never again'. And so it has been.

And, Gen Birdwood was appointed by the Australian Govt and could only be removed from command by the Australian Govt. A British officer, born in Britain, trained by Britain but an Australian soldier.

red baron wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

Sounds like a British op, like the Battle of Rorke's Drift where the Supply Officer didn't want to release ammunition without the correct form being filled out. Forget about the fact that 6,000 Zulus were avalanching towards the few hundred defenders of Rorke's Drift in  the Battle of Ishwandala.

What rubbish.

I bet you also think those fighting the Zulus were Welsh and sang Men of Harlech during the battle.

No doubt Hellenes argued about the details or the 'truth' of their mythical Heroes, gods and demigods too!

The ANZAC legend is a myth, (a 'noble lie', to be bluntly Platonic), with the whole truth being incidental.

That's what myths are made of... And this myth has it all... A kernel (Colonel?) of truth, with an amalgam of fantasy, idealism, nostalgia and a glorified sense of national self at an (almost magical and totally unpredictable) right measure to create the vast edifice that is 'The ANZAC' and, by that, us.

But such a national myth, so forged, is a sacred and rare gift... To be nurtured, as it Heroes, unlike 'we who are left grow old',  themselves grow ever greater, more sacred and ever immortal.

England has many such myths... Elizabeth I (Gloriana) for instance, whose supposedly most famous speech that defined her greatness and immortalised English resolve against the Spanish, was written and attributed to her after her death... Does that matter to the legend of her reign? Of course not!

Great myths are forged in Heaven, by gods, as consolations to mortals!

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 7:03am:

England has many such myths... Elizabeth I (Gloriana) for instance, whose supposedly most famous speech that defined her greatness and immortalised English resolve against the Spanish, was written and attributed to her after her death... Does that matter to the legend of her reign? Of course not!

Erm, Elizabeth DID actually say that speech.  She made the speech on 9th August 1588 to English troops at Tilbury, in Essex, on the North Bank of the Thames, as they were readying to repel an attempted invasion by the Spanish Armada.

Prior to the speech the Armada had been driven from the Strait of Dover in the Battle of Gravelines eleven days earlier, and had by now rounded Scotland on its way home, but troops were still held at ready in case the Spanish army of Alexander Farnese, the Duke of Parma, might yet attempt to invade from Dunkirk (which was then under Spanish rule but would eventually come under English rule); two days later they were discharged. On the day of the speech, the Queen left her bodyguard before the fort at Tilbury and went among her subjects with an escort of six men. Lord Ormonde walked ahead with the Sword of State; he was followed by a page leading the Queen's charger and another bearing her silver helmet on a cushion; then came the Queen herself, in white with a silver cuirass and mounted on a grey gelding. She was flanked on horseback by her Lieutenant General the Earl of Leicester on the right, and on the left by the Earl of Essex, her Master of the Horse. Sir John Norreys brought up the rear.

The Speech

My loving people

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you on a word of a prince, they shall be duly paid. In the mean time, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

Cofgod wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 10:00pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2014 at 7:03am: England has many such myths... Elizabeth I (Gloriana) for instance, whose supposedly most famous speech that defined her greatness and immortalised English resolve against the Spanish, was written and attributed to her after her death... Does that matter to the legend of her reign? Of course not! Erm, Elizabeth DID actually say that speech.  She made the speech on 9th August 1588 to English troops at Tilbury, in Essex, on the North Bank of the Thames, as they were readying to repel an attempted invasion by the Spanish Armada.

And you know that because?

She may have made a speech at Tilbury, in Essex, on the North Bank of the Thames but what did she actually say?

The text of the speech was found in a letter from Leonel Sharp sometime after 1624 to the duke of Buckingham.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_to_the_Troops_at_Tilbury

That's the thing about myths - A kernel of truth, with an amalgam of fantasy, idealism, nostalgia and a glorified sense of national self at an (almost magical and totally unpredictable) right measure... Great circumstance helps, of course.

To be resumed (with enthusiasm, no doubt) on 25 April 2015... The Centenary Commemoration.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

This is answered by the female professor in this short video. Australia's own politicians made the decision to leave it up to the British to command the Aussie troops.

To be clear and exact, she said that the Britsh HIGH command was responsible for the (strategic) deployment of Australian forces. IOW if they all stay in Palestine or if they all get deployed to France or if they all go home.

The Australian govt, acting through Gen Birdwood (an Australian officers seconded from the British Army) was responsible for the operational command of the AIF. Gen Birdwood had the right, obligation and responsibility to say yea or nay to the deployment of the AIF. Which is one of her (mild) criticisms of the Australian officer corp of not standing up to Hiag as the Canadian Gen Currie did. 


Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Don't believe for a moment that you should sit humbly at the feet of so-called 'professional historians'. A great many of them are deceitful academic egotists with a barrow to push and an agenda to run.

I agree. It is sad that we can't rely on academia to be as objective in their science and their studies as they pretend to be. And there are many reasons for this but dirty crass money is normally at the base of the lack of objectivity.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

This is answered by the female professor in this short video. Australia's own politicians made the decision to leave it up to the British to command the Aussie troops.

To be clear and exact, she said that the Britsh HIGH command was responsible for the (strategic) deployment of Australian forces. IOW if they all stay in Palestine or if they all get deployed to France or if they all go home.

The Australian govt, acting through Gen Birdwood (an Australian officers seconded from the British Army) was responsible for the operational command of the AIF. Gen Birdwood had the right, obligation and responsibility to say yea or nay to the deployment of the AIF. Which is one of her (mild) criticisms of the Australian officer corp of not standing up to Hiag as the Canadian Gen Currie did. 


Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Don't believe for a moment that you should sit humbly at the feet of so-called 'professional historians'. A great many of them are deceitful academic egotists with a barrow to push and an agenda to run.

I agree. It is sad that we can't rely on academia to be as objective in their science and their studies as they pretend to be. And there are many reasons for this but dirty crass money is normally at the base of the lack of objectivity.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 7:03am:

No doubt Hellenes argued about the details or the 'truth' of their mythical Heroes, gods and demigods too! The ANZAC legend is a myth, (a 'noble lie', to be bluntly Platonic), with the whole truth being incidental. That's what myths are made of... And this myth has it all... A kernel (Colonel?) of truth, with an amalgam of fantasy, idealism, nostalgia and a glorified sense of national self at an (almost magical and totally unpredictable) right measure to create the vast edifice that is 'The ANZAC' and, by that, us. But such a national myth, so forged, is a sacred and rare gift... To be nurtured, as it Heroes, unlike 'we who are left grow old',  themselves grow ever greater, more sacred and ever immortal. England has many such myths... Elizabeth I (Gloriana) for instance, whose supposedly most famous speech that defined her greatness and immortalised English resolve against the Spanish, was written and attributed to her after her death... Does that matter to the legend of her reign? Of course not! Great myths are forged in Heaven, by gods, as consolations to mortals!

That outburst begs the question; what do you think the myth is?

I, for one, tend to be more moved by the senseless sacrifice of so many.

OldnCrusty wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1st, 2014 at 7:03am: No doubt Hellenes argued about the details or the 'truth' of their mythical Heroes, gods and demigods too! The ANZAC legend is a myth, (a 'noble lie', to be bluntly Platonic), with the whole truth being incidental. That's what myths are made of... And this myth has it all... A kernel (Colonel?) of truth, with an amalgam of fantasy, idealism, nostalgia and a glorified sense of national self at an (almost magical and totally unpredictable) right measure to create the vast edifice that is 'The ANZAC' and, by that, us. But such a national myth, so forged, is a sacred and rare gift... To be nurtured, as it Heroes, unlike 'we who are left grow old',  themselves grow ever greater, more sacred and ever immortal. England has many such myths... Elizabeth I (Gloriana) for instance, whose supposedly most famous speech that defined her greatness and immortalised English resolve against the Spanish, was written and attributed to her after her death... Does that matter to the legend of her reign? Of course not! Great myths are forged in Heaven, by gods, as consolations to mortals! That outburst begs the question; what do you think the myth is?

What do I think the [ANZAC] myth is?

The legend of 'us' that triggers within us a complex emotional and idealised sense of ourselves as fearless, courageous, heroic and decent.

.

I always believed a myth was something that happened a long time ago that isn't true.  Gallipoli is true.  The facts are recorded for those who really want to know. There are great books  and docos etc. The government has never hidden the dirty details. If there is a myth it's the way Gallipoli is projected through the media. The dirty details are never discussed and an overriding projection of nationhood is overused. Did you know that the men got sick because flies were crawling over the dead and then landing on the mens food.  Dysentery became rampant. They dug slip trenches for toilets and men were so weak some  drowned in these slip trenches. Another Myth is how returned soldiers were seen as heroes. No true. Many men lost their wives, jobs etc. They didn't get proper support and some ended up living on the streets. If Gallipoli was properly projected on ANZAC Day through the media it wouldn't be a pleasant experience,

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 2:22pm:

The legend of 'us' that triggers within us a complex emotional and idealised sense of ourselves as fearless, courageous, heroic and decent.

So you think the Anzac weren't that or is it that we are not that now (or at least aspire to those ideals).

Mind you, I agree with your observations of the legend but would also add mateship, loyalty, service, realising that we are Australians and not British, self reliance, innovative, not subservient,  and we bundy on and we bundy off (we know when to be super serious and we know when to chill out and not take ourselves too seriously).

OldnCrusty wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 2:40pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 2:22pm: The legend of 'us' that triggers within us a complex emotional and idealised sense of ourselves as fearless, courageous, heroic and decent. So you think the Anzac weren't that or is it that we are not that now (or at least aspire to those ideals).

I don't think the ANZACs would have thought of themselves as anything like we imagine them... They weren't 'Grecian demigods' back then.


OldnCrusty wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 2:40pm:

Mind you, I agree with your observations of the legend but would also add mateship, loyalty, service, realising that we are Australians and not British, self reliance, innovative, not subservient,  and we bundy on and we bundy off (we know when to be super serious and we know when to chill out and not take ourselves too seriously).

And so the function of myth is to cystalise all that we imagine ourselves to be into a narrative.