Gallipoli

[sonic]

The strategy behind the Gallipoli campaign was sound. A strike at the Dardanelles would put Turkey under immense pressure. It might also have opened up the Black Sea, meaning an increase in possibilities to support the Russians.

 

The implementation of the campaign was a disaster. The British sent in a fleet that was badly damaged, so giving the Turks an idea of what they planned. Further, the landings were not at the right place, causing delay and confusion. Finally, even when the landings occurred the British had a small chance: the commander in place could have ordered an expansion of the beachhead and actually cut the southern end of the Dardanelles off from Istanbul, so allowing the British more room and the chance to bring in reinforcements. He refused to move, instead fortifying the landing place. Later, the troops would not be able to break out from these positions.

 

The performance of the ANZACS, British, French and Turkish troops during the campaign were exemplary and showed that, despite the fact that the upper echelons were poor, the actual troops were willing to face anything to win.

 

 

Finally, is war necessary? The question is almost impossible to answer, since it relies on analysing all of the possible causes of war. Generally, as has already been said, it is plausible to claim that all wars are pointless, since a war of defence simply means that the aggressors should not have gone to war. Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that ALL wars are pointless.

 

However, I don't think that the Allies in the Second World War would agree. Their war of defence was fully justified and, without it, the Nazis would have dominated Western civilization for the foreseeable future.

 

One last point about WWI. It is accepted that all of the countries involved simply reacted 'domino' fashion to the death of the Austrian Archduke, but that this was only the ignition point and that war was the result of increased international tension in the decades leading up to 1914. However, this does not take into account the British attitude. Up to the last minute it was dubious whether the British would actually become involved in the war. It was only when the Germans invaded neutral Belgium - whose frontiers had been guaranteed by Britain in the 1830's - that Britain's hand was forced.

 

Was war necessary to defend Belgium? Or was it the fault of the Austrians/Germans as they declared war in the first place and so it was unnecessary? That is a circular question that defies conclusion.

Edited August 14, 2008 by sonic

[Tobias]

That was of course an extraordinary post and we entirely agree, but what I was actually meaning by "did they ever have a chance?" is if as British subjects the Australians (and New Zealanders) did really ever had the chance of "easily dismissing" that war as "European" and "irrelevant" to them.

 

Of course we did. Australia was not necessarily obliged to fight Britain's wars; we were an essentially autonomous federated Commonwealth by the time World War I started - what was known as a Dominion of the Empire, as opposed to a Crown Colony. Although then (as we do today), we acknowledged the Monarch of Great Britain as our head of state, the powers of the Monarch in Australia are quite theoretical and limited, and usually only used in consultation with the Government of Australia of the day. The Governor-General of Australia at the time we declared war, The Right Hon. Thomas Denman, could not have "ordered" us to march to the aid of the Motherland with colours flying and bands playing. However, out of a sense of obligation, honour, maybe a touch of what we here call "mateship" on a much larger scale and a desire for adventure, the 1st A.I.F, an entirely volunteer force, was raised to fight, after the Australian Prime Minister Joseph Cook declared war on Germany. Out of 331 814 recruits, 61 859 were killed. We chose to fight. As Andrew Fisher said, we swore to defend the Empire to the last man and the last shilling.

 

Perhaps there was a touch of naivety there. If we had gone along a different colonial path i.e. that of the United States, we could have rebelled against our "Colonial Overlords" and declared ourselves an officially independent country, and distanced ourselves from the war. Instead, we felt ourselves bound to give something back to the land from which we were born. It was a different time; a time when one could do what one thought was honourable. I think we have no right whatsoever to go anywhere near denigrating what the men and women of their respective nations fought for. There aren't many WWI veterans left. But here in Australia at least, we try to keep alive the ideals that they fought for. Australia could have chosen not to fight. But to the people of that day, that choice was not a choice at all.

 

Last year, for my Higher School Certificate, i wrote a semi-thesis on the development of arms from the first "hand gonnes" until WWII, and the changing strategic and tactical mentality that went along with it. From what I researched and reasoned, one can see so many similar patterns, and one can almost say that World War I, if not necessary, was inevitable. If i could find it, i'd start a topic on it lol

Edited August 15, 2008 by Tobias

[Maladict]

Of course we did. Australia was not necessarily obliged to fight Britain's wars;

 

Britain declared war on behalf of the dominions too. Australia and the others had no say in the matter, they were at war automatically when Britain signed the declaration. Australia would have had to sign a separate peace treaty with the Central Powers to get out of the war, which would have been awkward to say the least.

[caldrail]

It was a tough campaign, there's no doubt. I suspect though that the australians highlight it because they were there - its national pride - thats understandable, and I'm not demeaning their efforts in any way. I think you have to realise though that it was a tough war for most combatants, given the privations of trench warfare and the life expectantcy of 'going over the top'.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Of course we did. Australia was not necessarily obliged to fight Britain's wars;

 

Britain declared war on behalf of the dominions too. Australia and the others had no say in the matter, they were at war automatically when Britain signed the declaration. Australia would have had to sign a separate peace treaty with the Central Powers to get out of the war, which would have been awkward to say the least.

Of course, I entirely agree with Maladict.

 

As far as I'm aware, the quite especial case of the

Edited August 18, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Antiochus III]

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.

 

There was an ancient quote that I think is very relevant to both ancient and modern soldiers: (not exact quote, I'll do my best) Brave men are a city's strongest tower of defense(alcaeus?). there is antoher quote as well: the brave are cut down in battle the cowards flee to safety and live (again, just a loose reproduction). both quotes i think are excellent, and from them I gather that some bravery and nationalism is warranted in certain situations. However, it would not be wise to go to war too early or too often. take a look at another more well known quote: quinctilius varus, give me back my legions! - Augustus after the Tuetoberg wald disaster. this is comparable to the casualties taken and lack of gains made during the gallipoli campaign. I am well aware that the gallipoli campaign and the varus disaster were fairly different in many respects, but the overall results were comparable. in both, the invaders were forced to retreat/were killed. both were unbelievable costly in monetary and human resources. people argue that in the teutoberg ambush few germans were killed, while during gallipoli, the sides counted similar casualties. my counterpoint: does it even matter? the two were both offensive failures, and the price was too high. does it matter that the ottomans were experiencing brutal losses as well?

 

 

Finally-some australians believe it was a sign of the emergence of their modern state, that it created a sense of national unity and pride, a national identity. Fighting wars to "unite" or to strengthen a nation is barbarism. Having a strong sense of national cutlure and pride helps to fight a succesful war. Modern bureaucrats and some US presidents say (and believe) that waging war will create a stronger national identity, will strengthen cultural bonds, and may even help the economy. The reverse of this is actually true; those things will help a nation wage war. Poorly run governments tend to rely on war, and especially primitive (barbarian) cultures relied on their armies prowess to determine the success of the state. what separates these barbarian states from developed nations is economic prosperity, national unity, and well developed education, coupled with less corruption, and less military spending. Warfare actually is harmful to economies, increases military funding (thereby reducing educatory opportunities for the poor), decreases national unity, and increases corruption. Classic examples of these points are th vietnam and the iraq wars, though other wars, esp. long ones support these points as well. Another characteristic of barbarism is a monarch or person with political power with the ability send troops to countries at will, who is not the best suited person to be in a powerful position, and who is willing to sacrifice the economic prosperity and schooling opportunites of the general population. They back corrupt policies, spend more on the military, and unknowingly create rifts in the population. These persons generally have personal interests in mind, or interests of the people that have them in their back pocket. The nation is hurt, fighting a long and crippling war, and the general population is being virtually extorted. However, the propaganda is good, and people believe in their failure of a nation, usually acknowledging that they think their country is still the best because of vague reasons, (more free, etc.) and fail to see fundamental problems with their govermental structure, due to excessive propaganda and certain forms of even more extreme brainwashing. It is in this way that these people in positions of power keep their power, keep the wars continuing in a perpetual fashion, weaken their state and citizens, while increasing their own wealth and hte wealth of their friends and patronizers. They also endorse war profiteering through cash incentives, but I've written enought for the time being.

 

ATG

 

(please ask me to further explain things about this that you have Q's about!)

Edited September 19, 2008 by Antiochus III

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, A III

ATG

 

(please ask me to further explain things about this that you have Q's about!)

Edited December 3, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

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.

As to whether the Great War was unnecessary, I can't argue with you. The problem of course was european rivalry as these nations jostled for status. The extent of industrialisation of the great powers had significantly changed strategic possibilities and I don't believe the generals of the time were aware that modern weapons would change the nature of warfare so much, something they only learned by experience and forgot after the armistice.

 

You've asked what was noble about the Great War. This is a subjective question I think, because the Great War meant different things to different people. I can't speak for other nations, but in Britain the Great War was a chance to display national pride, to do ones duty for the crown, and in a strange way became a cultural rite of manhood despite the horrific loss of life. In a way, it was the 'volunteer' aspect of service recruitment that gave it the element of nobility. People were not actually forced to join up and go to war, they chose to do so because they believed the cause was just.

 

My grandfather, on his return from France, ventured out into Newcastle in civvies only to receive a white feather from a woman who clearly saw him as a coward for not 'doing his bit', which naturally angered him given his war experience at Gallipoli and the Western Front. He has signed up underage like a good many young men, anxious to do his bit and prove himself in the world. There was a different mindset back then, a very strong nationalistic pride common to most european nations based on their success in economical, industrial, and colonial growth. How we see the Great War now is very much with the benefit of hindsight. They saw it differently.

[Ursus]

Do you consider there's really a good reason for beginning a war?

 

 

From a Humanist perspective, no. But from a Realist perspective, to secure critical geopolitical ends ...?

 

My problem with post-Cold War American foreign policy is not that we impose ourselves on sovereign powers, but that we do so for seemingly arbitrary reasons, and that the costs of intervention usually far outweigh the gains. There should be tangible benefits to imperialism but lately all I see are military quaigmires and diplomatic fiascos.

[ASCLEPIADES]

My problem with post-Cold War American foreign policy is not that we impose ourselves on sovereign powers, but that we do so for seemingly arbitrary reasons, and that the costs of intervention usually far outweigh the gains. There should be tangible benefits to imperialism but lately all I see are military quaigmires and diplomatic fiascos.

We entirely agree.

Edited December 3, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Antiochus III]

Salve, A III

ATG

 

(please ask me to further explain things about this that you have Q's about!)

I would be quite interested in your commments about ROBERT WRIGHT'S LECTURE regarding the question if History has been directed towards both moral progress and self-interest.

 

Well, I don't agree with Robert Wright on this topic; do humans really HAVE to make moral strides in the coming years as he says? He's basically saying that humans will become less violent as we move on--something that comes from the philosophical view that humans are inherently good moral creatures. I do not agree with this. I think that the overall aggressiveness of humans will not change; in fact I believe that some of the institutions which humans use to promote tranquility are violent. I do believe that there exist people who do not have feelings like you or me, be it because of the choices their mother made , or the environment in which they grew up. I believe that there exist people who would willingly cause a world calamity, and unfortunately, our present world lends itself to the allowance of this possibility. That is not to say that changes cannot be made to prevent this; I simply believe that these changes have a slim chance of coming to pass.

 

Antiochus III

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, AIII

Well, I don't agree with Robert Wright on this topic; do humans really HAVE to make moral strides in the coming years as he says? He's basically saying that humans will become less violent as we move on--something that comes from the philosophical view that humans are inherently good moral creatures. I do not agree with this. I think that the overall aggressiveness of humans will not change; in fact I believe that some of the institutions which humans use to promote tranquility are violent. I do believe that there exist people who do not have feelings like you or me, be it because of the choices their mother made , or the environment in which they grew up. I believe that there exist people who would willingly cause a world calamity, and unfortunately, our present world lends itself to the allowance of this possibility. That is not to say that changes cannot be made to prevent this; I simply believe that these changes have a slim chance of coming to pass.

 

Antiochus III

It seems we watched different lectures:Wrigth described the progessive lessening in war density through History (a hard fact) and foresaw the continuity of such process; he attributed it not so much to a change in moral standards (as you seem to have perceived) but mostly to the developement of more intimate and universal common interests via globalisation; ie, hurting you I hurt myself (eg his joke on Japanese cars).

 

IMHO, you missed the core of this lecture.

Edited November 9, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

He's basically saying that humans will become less violent as we move on--something that comes from the philosophical view that humans are inherently good moral creatures. I do not agree with this.

Human beings are what they've always been. Civilisation is created with every new generation and if we fail then we return to the animal nature designed us to be, but then, human beings are a success because we act that way, not because we make philosophical decisions, and our 'moral' superiority is based on tribal culture. Plenty of cultures have regarded fighting as paramount. The ancient 'scythians' asked each other when they met an old friend "How many men have you killed?", with an answer of none being considered undesirable. So its also tribal status that leads us to adopt these attitudes sometimes, as we see on the streets on various inner cities, again, a primeval instinct so the trick is not philosophy, morals, or such, but an identifiable and competetive status structuere that eschews such violence.

 

I should add though that the solution should be dynamic. Human beings also have a high degree of behavioural diversification, a survival strategy thats assisted humanity from the start. Within a complex society, different individuals adopt the role of herbivore, scavenger, carnivore, etc. For that reason, you will always find individuals who want to thrive by exploiting or eliminating others.

Edited December 1, 2008 by caldrail