Gallipoli

[Antiochus III]

Moving away from a subject guaranteed to cause argument and back to the topic....

 

I note that Winston Churchill hasn't had a look in; for one, he came up with the idea for a military campaign that would help create a national identity for Australia (Gallipoli). He wrote an extensive history of the English-Speaking peoples in a way that sounds more like a good story then monotone history (in my opinion - the four volumes are great reads). He fought and won one of the most terrible conflicts of the 20th century (obviously not single-handedly, but you get my point), and also could be said to have laid the basis for the Cold War by countenancing Stalin. He certainly influenced the shape of Europe for years, and his words will last for ages to come. Definitely someone worthy of consideration, in my book.

 

An influential woman to consider is Zenobia - it would take a ballsy woman to take control of the Roman East!

 

 

Just so you know, the gallipoli campaign was a miserable failure, and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to "create a national identity" in my opinion is just making yourself look like an idiot. Military accomplishments are often overshadowed by the fact that the use of force is moving humanity as a whole backwards, and no doubt eventually will cause our end.

 

Antiochus III

[ASCLEPIADES]

Moving away from a subject guaranteed to cause argument and back to the topic....

 

I note that Winston Churchill hasn't had a look in; for one, he came up with the idea for a military campaign that would help create a national identity for Australia (Gallipoli). He wrote an extensive history of the English-Speaking peoples in a way that sounds more like a good story then monotone history (in my opinion - the four volumes are great reads). He fought and won one of the most terrible conflicts of the 20th century (obviously not single-handedly, but you get my point), and also could be said to have laid the basis for the Cold War by countenancing Stalin. He certainly influenced the shape of Europe for years, and his words will last for ages to come. Definitely someone worthy of consideration, in my book.

 

An influential woman to consider is Zenobia - it would take a ballsy woman to take control of the Roman East!

 

 

Just so you know, the gallipoli campaign was a miserable failure, and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to "create a national identity" in my opinion is just making yourself look like an idiot. Military accomplishments are often overshadowed by the fact that the use of force is moving humanity as a whole backwards, and no doubt eventually will cause our end.

 

Antiochus III

Edited December 3, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[stormer]

I agree with Antiochus III, Gallipoli was a complete failure, those troops could have been used to fight in syria or iraq to speed up the defeat of the Ottomans.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

IIRC the whole Gallipoli expedition had as an objective not just the defeat of Turkey but also the twin objectives of forcing a way through the Balkans and threatening Bulgaria and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, thereby endangering the entire German left flank. It was a classic specimen of what Liddell Hart would have called the "Indirect Approach" and the soundness of the strategy was proved a few years later by a French expeditionary force out of Salonika that defeated the Bulgarians and threatened the left flank of Ludendorff's great offensive in the west. There are some historians who think that this was one of the decisive factors that brought about the collapse of the Kaiser's final offensive on the Western Front.

The execution of the Gallipoli campaign was a dismal failure however and, as Asclepiades pointed out, an arrogant underestimation of the enemy played a part, along with poor choice of terrain and miserable failure on the part of Allied intelligence in knowing the disposition of the Turkish defences. I cannot help adding that the Turks fought magnificently and their fighting prowess was attested to by the men that fought there. Some French officers that were veterans of the Western Front stated that one Turk was equal to two Germans. This may of course have been nothing but a reflection of their anti-German bias but nevertheless it is a good indicator of the high esteem in which Turkish soldiers were held by their foe.

[Tobias]

Just so you know, the gallipoli campaign was a miserable failure, and sacrificing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to "create a national identity" in my opinion is just making yourself look like an idiot. Military accomplishments are often overshadowed by the fact that the use of force is moving humanity as a whole backwards, and no doubt eventually will cause our end.

 

Antiochus III

 

So that i don't appear hypocritical by wandering into another "contentious subject" irrelevant to the topic, i won't say anything apart from saying that i was taking an objective approach to Churchill; Gallipoli was a stuff up, and you're not telling me, an Australian, anything new when you say that the campaign was a failure. However, the performance of the Australian soldiers (along with the New Zealanders and other soldiers of the Commonwealth) was exemplary in a hopeless situation, especially considering that Australia had never fought a war as a nation before (unless you count the Boer War, which had started before the federation of Australia). The ANZAC forces displayed incredible courage, stamina and what we call "mateship", in a situation when they were landed on the wrong beach, which was a few metres wide, backing onto an almost sheer hill face. Even after all the stuff-ups, the campaign came within inches of being a total success in the first few days, but the incredible ability of the Turkish commander, Mustapha Kemal Attaturk, and the guts and determination of the Turkish soldiers prevented this. Thus, we admit that Churchill's plan was a failure - but that it gave us the chance to find ourselves as a nation.

 

It's all very well to revise and distort history by looking at it like you did Antiochus. But the fact is, one of the most important parts of our National identity stems from the fact that it was a failure - but that the Australians and New Zealanders showed what they were made of nonetheless. We tested ourselves, and did not find ourselves lacking, despite the adversity. The cream of Australia's population did not hesitate, but immediately volunteered to fight a war on the other side of the world, which we could just as easily have dismissed as a "European war, irrelevant to us". As far as a national identity is concerned, I'd rather have one that shows we are loyal to our brothers and willing to fight for an ideal, rather then one that shows us as disloyal cowards.

 

So much for remaining objective lol!

Edited August 11, 2008 by Tobias

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, T

But the fact is, one of the most important parts of our National identity stems from the fact that it was a failure - but that the Australians and New Zealanders showed what they were made of nonetheless. We tested ourselves, and did not find ourselves lacking, despite the adversity. The cream of Australia's population did not hesitate, but immediately volunteered to fight a war on the other side of the world, which we could just as easily have dismissed as a "European war, irrelevant to us".

Sounds a lot like the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava in 1854 to me.

 

The cream of Australia's population did not hesitate, but immediately volunteered to fight a war on the other side of the world, which we could just as easily have dismissed as a "European war, irrelevant to us".

Did they really ever have the chance of doing so?

[Faustus]

The cream of Australia's population did not hesitate, but immediately volunteered to fight a war on the other side of the world, which we could just as easily have dismissed as a "European war, irrelevant to us". As far as a national identity is concerned, I'd rather have one that shows we are loyal to our brothers and willing to fight for an ideal, rather then one that shows us as disloyal cowards.

 

So much for remaining objective lol!

 

Good show Tobias! It's good to know some of us still stand up for and understand honor, duty, courage, and a willingness to risk all for a noble cause and a national purpose.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

The cream of Australia's population did not hesitate, but immediately volunteered to fight a war on the other side of the world, which we could just as easily have dismissed as a "European war, irrelevant to us". As far as a national identity is concerned, I'd rather have one that shows we are loyal to our brothers and willing to fight for an ideal, rather then one that shows us as disloyal cowards.

 

So much for remaining objective lol!

 

Good show Tobias! It's good to know some of us still stand up for and understand honor, duty, courage, and a willingness to risk all for a noble cause and a national purpose.

Delete all except "noble cause". What was so noble about the Great War? I think it was one of the most unnecessary and gratuitously destructive wars ever fought by foolish mankind.

[DDickey]

The cream of Australia's population did not hesitate, but immediately volunteered to fight a war on the other side of the world, which we could just as easily have dismissed as a "European war, irrelevant to us". As far as a national identity is concerned, I'd rather have one that shows we are loyal to our brothers and willing to fight for an ideal, rather then one that shows us as disloyal cowards.

 

So much for remaining objective lol!

 

Good show Tobias! It's good to know some of us still stand up for and understand honor, duty, courage, and a willingness to risk all for a noble cause and a national purpose.

Delete all except "noble cause". What was so noble about the Great War? I think it was one of the most unnecessary and gratuitously destructive wars ever fought by foolish mankind.

 

Defining the Second World War as unnecessary is becoming all the rage lately, and it shows a profound

[Tobias]

Delete all except "noble cause". What was so noble about the Great War? I think it was one of the most unnecessary and gratuitously destructive wars ever fought by foolish mankind.

 

I didn't exactly mean it in the light of a "noble cause"...but as Rose Tattoo said; "There comes a time when every man must fight".

 

Defining the Second World War as unnecessary is becoming all the rage lately, and it shows a profound—bordering on disturbing—ignorance of events leading up to the war. The war was great because of what was at stake, and the level of sacrifices men were willing to make—and that men made—to stop a vicious, fascist, genocidal axis from conquering the known world.

 

I'm afraid we were talking about the First World War old chap , but revisionists have taken to denouncing the Great War as unnecessary as well...

 

At any rate, let's go back to influential people...i didn't meant to start another argument irrelevant to the topic lol, so let's agree to disagree.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Tobias

[Northern Neil]

Defining the Second World War as unnecessary is becoming all the rage lately, and it shows a profound

[DDickey]

Delete all except "noble cause". What was so noble about the Great War? I think it was one of the most unnecessary and gratuitously destructive wars ever fought by foolish mankind.

 

I didn't exactly mean it in the light of a "noble cause"...but as Rose Tattoo said; "There comes a time when every man must fight".

 

Defining the Second World War as unnecessary is becoming all the rage lately, and it shows a profound

[Northern Neil]

Ugh. Sorry. I do that every time I'm at work! I scan over something quickly and draw conclusions. My apologies.

Thats OK - I ran with the flow too, on this! But our tangential posts are not entirely irrelevent. WW1 was pointless in many ways. As Edmund Blackadder said in the last episode of Series 4 of the excellent BBC comedy, 'In the end, it was too much trouble NOT to have a war'.

 

WW2 was not entirely pointless, as it put an end to many unsavoury totalitarian regimes. But, to enable this, we had to ally ouselves to one or two as well, and in the process declare war on several harmless democratic states who had no choice but to side with Hitler.

[DDickey]

Mods: Feel free to move this, but, in keeping with the last couple posts--i.e. mine --I thought I'd post a link here to an interesting conversation about WWII revisionism.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Defining the Second World War as unnecessary is becoming all the rage lately, and it shows a profound