Gallipoli

[DDickey]

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

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Oh. Oops. I see you've been corrected already. I was answering the post earlier straight from my email, which I opened after a long time. Anyway "Revisionism" is nowadays often just a label used to do academic hatchet-jobs on people, just like "anti-Semite" or "Communist"(that was back in the fifties). The word is misused so much that people often fail to realize that it does not necessarily have to have a negative connotation. There is nothing wrong with revising orthodox or conventional concepts in history, especially when new data emerges that was not available before. It is very much a part and parcel of historiography. The problem arises when people use historical distortion in order to suit their own peculiar agenda. At any rate I don't think WWII was historically unnecessary but I fervently believe WWI was.

[DDickey]

Oh. Oops. I see you've been corrected already. I was answering the post earlier straight from my email, which I opened after a long time. Anyway "Revisionism" is nowadays often just a label used to do academic hatchet-jobs on people, just like "anti-Semite" or "Communist"(that was back in the fifties). The word is misused so much that people often fail to realize that it does not necessarily have to have a negative connotation. There is nothing wrong with revising orthodox or conventional concepts in history, especially when new data emerges that was not available before. It is very much a part and parcel of historiography. The problem arises when people use historical distortion in order to suit their own peculiar agenda. At any rate I don't think WWII was historically unnecessary but I fervently believe WWI was.

 

The run-up to the First World War, following Ferdinand

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Oh. Oops. I see you've been corrected already. I was answering the post earlier straight from my email, which I opened after a long time. Anyway "Revisionism" is nowadays often just a label used to do academic hatchet-jobs on people, just like "anti-Semite" or "Communist"(that was back in the fifties). The word is misused so much that people often fail to realize that it does not necessarily have to have a negative connotation. There is nothing wrong with revising orthodox or conventional concepts in history, especially when new data emerges that was not available before. It is very much a part and parcel of historiography. The problem arises when people use historical distortion in order to suit their own peculiar agenda. At any rate I don't think WWII was historically unnecessary but I fervently believe WWI was.

 

The run-up to the First World War, following Ferdinand

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

 

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

 

(Self-defense is not, because it implies, by definition, that the enemy attacked first).

[Nephele]

DDickey, even though in your haste to defend the necessity of fighting WWII you jumped to the conclusion that it was WWII rather than WWI being discussed, I want to thank you for that YouTube link of Victor Davis Hanson and Christopher Hitchens refuting Pat Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.

 

-- Nephele

[Melvadius]

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?

 

Depends what you mean by "did they ever have a chance". The Charge of the Light Brigade had several elements in common with the landings at Gallipoli;

 

The Light Brigade were originally asked to attack a single position (some allied guns which had been captured by the Russians) which if successful would have led to relatively minor loss of life for them but instead their commander sent them the wrong way. Those actions may have been partially influenced by the actions of 300 men from the Heavy Brigade (although finally supported by the other 600). Earlier in the day the Heavy Brigade had been suprised on the march by at least 2,000 Russian cavalry. Instead of disengaging and withdrawing as fast as they could, the commander had instantly ordered the attack and possibly by a combination of luck and fighting ability they had routed the Russians with minimal losses on their side - 300 men had struck first pushing back the Russian centre and drawing the Russian wings around them which is when the remaining 600 had hit what was effectively now the rear of the Russian forces. Unfortunately this earlier victory may have partially sown the seeds of the later defeat of the Light Brigade as it appears to have been the same Russian Cavalry who withdrew and after recovering supported the cannons which the Light Brigade later charged.

 

Tennysons poem commemorating the Heavy Brigade charge is at:

 

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-ete...chargeheavy.htm

 

The map of the battle can be found at :

 

http://www.britishbattles.com/crimean-war/balaclava.htm

 

At Gallipoli the original landing site may have led to a successful campaign where the allied troops could have been reinforced and quickly spread out instead of being bottled up around their original landing point and ending up fighting a defensive war while the Turks could make use of their superior numbers and position overlooking the beaches.

 

[missed a bit so EDIT below]

 

I would say that on the whole they did "have a chance" but as happens all too often with depressing regularity in military conflicts as soon as they engaged the enemy in the way (and when) they did that "chance" rapidly and bloodily evaporated. At Gallipoli after the initial landing failure there was a diminishing probability that the Commonwealth, French (and some British) Troops could break out from their beach head and in the event after several months of fierce fighting the campaingn failed.

 

c/f:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli

Edited August 12, 2008 by Melvadius

[caldrail]

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.

 

I doubt the australians needed the gallipoli campaign to establish a national identity. Winston Churchills scheme was typical of him. An outflanking campaign in a 'soft' backwater, but one that proved more troublesome than he expected. My grandfather was there, an underage naval reservist who was sent ashore to help storm the turkish trenches. He never told me much about it, the war was something that weighed heavily with him, but he certainly left me in no doubt of the daily privation and nastiness that war entails.

 

... the fact that the use of force is moving humanity as a whole backwards, and no doubt eventually will cause our end.

No, it won't, because there will always be humans that survive it, and the threat of nuclear conflict tends to ensure it won't be used so readily. Remember, it only took two such bombs to bring the hard hearted and defiant japanes military junta to raise the white flag, after they had insisted that every japanese man, woman, and child was to fight the allies to the last blood. Arguably, warfare is an extension of animal social behaviour, and since in nature its a matter of survival of the fittest, there is a tendency for warfare to reinforce a society (assuming it doesn't lose and become swallowed up) in some ways. The modern 'total war' however is deeply damaging to our ability to survive as a complex industrial society which is a very specialised 'nest' we build for ourselves, a very vulnerable one, and therefore if its damaged too greatly the society is pushed back a notch. Not quite back to the stone age as if often quoted, but certainly to a level of barbarism we know is lurking under the surface of our comfortable lives. An example of the worst sort of collapse was the minoans after the destruction of Santorini by volcanic explosion and the resulting depression wave (a tsunami) that wrecked the ability of their culture to trade and communicate). The minoans essentially fragmented into small groups of cannablistic survivors.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, M

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?

 

Depends what you mean by "did they ever have a chance". The Charge of the Light Brigade had several elements in common with the landings at Gallipoli;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli

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.

Edited August 12, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Melvadius]

Salve, M

<SNIP>

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.

 

I am sorry if this cuts across some of what has now been added to this thread but with your clarificiation I think that you may have originally used the wrong phrase for how the Great War was perceived across what was the British empire and indeed the rest of the world at the time.

 

Like many having had several relatives involved in it I have done a little family research into the period to try and understand the issues that motivated my own family members and indeed others who served in any way - not all in a directly military capacity.

 

The majority of the 'white' ANZAC population were probably, at most, only one or two generations removed from their 'British' roots so had a direct connection to the 'homeland'.

 

However across the Empire, at all strata's, society was polarised very heavily to the view that it was right and proper to defend the Empire from 'foreign aggression'. This included defending against encroachment on the Emperor's and/or the wider Empire's interests no matter how poorly those interests may have been understood locally.

 

On the 'British' side, at least at the start of the conflict, every corner of the Empire willingly supplied as many men and as much resources as they could and there was a great esprit de corp at all levels, even amongst the Chinese coolies who may have only been tasked to carry supplies to the Front Line, let alone amongst the 'fighting' men.

 

Put simply there was a sense of pride in being part of a global Empire and that translated across the Empire into vast numbers enlisting to fight no matter what their original race, creed or colour. Similar factors led to equally high numbers enlisting in the German, Austrian and Turkish armies as well as the French, Russian, Japanese and other combatants in the war.

 

Ultimately it was a clash of ideals and sense of pride and place which transended choice let alone 'chance' but which sucked vast numbers into a horrendous conflict. They thought it would be the 'war to end all wars', such was the horror encountered by the armed forces and civilians who were affected or fought in it. However even after the horror became known it didn't stop millions more joining up and fighting for many of the same reasons as their fellow had at the start of the war.

 

It is very easy to sit in an armchair some 90 odd years after the event and question why people did something but the fact is that in most cases given a choice men probably join up to fight a war because they want to. Even if there are factors which they know about which may have 'forced' that choice they rarely if ever admit to them

[ASCLEPIADES]

Remember, it only took two such bombs to bring the hard hearted and defiant japanes military junta to raise the white flag, after they had insisted that every japanese man, woman, and child was to fight the allies to the last blood.

No; almost seven years of war, more than two million casualties, the utter havoc of Japan by conventional bombs, the unbreakable Chinese resistance, the opportunist Soviet attack and two nukes were required for that.

Even so, the most radical Japanese leaders and soldiers had to been reduced by force or driven to suicide by their more rational fellow compatriots, their sacred Emperor included.

 

Arguably, warfare is an extension of animal social behaviour, and since in nature its a matter of survival of the fittest, there is a tendency for warfare to reinforce a society (assuming it doesn't lose and become swallowed up) in some ways.

No. If you check any etology ("animal psychology") study on violence, you will confirm the universal development of deterrence biological mechanisms that mostly prevents intra-species lethal injury under almost any conceivable natural condition.

Arguably, we humans haven't had enough biological time to develop analogous mechanisms in evolutionary terms.

In Biology the "survival of the fittest" implies obtaining the best net profit from the available resources, not the physical destruction of the "enemy".

[caldrail]

Remember, it only took two such bombs to bring the hard hearted and defiant japanes military junta to raise the white flag, after they had insisted that every japanese man, woman, and child was to fight the allies to the last blood.

No; almost seven years of war, more than two million casualties, the utter havoc of Japan by conventional bombs, the unbreakable Chinese resistance, the opportunist Soviet attack and two nukes were required for that.

Even so, the most radical Japanese leaders and soldiers had to been reduced by force or driven to suicide by their more rational fellow compatriots, their sacred Emperor included.

No - the japanese junta were determined their country would fight to the death, typical of their militaristic psuedo-samurai code. The landings at Okinawa had already shown the japanese were willing to entertain that idea, especially since the grip of the junta on their minds was still very strong at that point. Although civilians did surrender, they had been told the american were animals hell bent on atrocity. There is a memorable film sequence of a woman throwing herself off a cliff rather than give herself up to the americans. The russian declaration of war barely had time to make itself felt, and in any case, since the japanese were determined to make a heroic last stand of their islands, it really wasn't going to convince them. What did make a deep impression was two cities being flattened.

 

Arguably, warfare is an extension of animal social behaviour, and since in nature its a matter of survival of the fittest, there is a tendency for warfare to reinforce a society (assuming it doesn't lose and become swallowed up) in some ways.

No. If you check any etology ("animal psychology") study on violence, you will confirm the universal development of deterrence biological mechanisms that mostly prevents intra-species lethal injury under almost any conceivable natural condition.

Arguably, we humans haven't had enough biological time to develop analogous mechanisms in evolutionary terms.

In Biology the "survival of the fittest" implies obtaining the best net profit from the available resources, not the physical destruction of the "enemy".

No. The ritual displays are there to prevent harm, and human beings already have those. Its called shouting your mouth off. Sometimes its called politics. But since we're an aggressive creature with strong territorial instincts its often necessary to bare our fangs and claws. If that doesn't work, we use them. Human beings play brinkmanship in confrontations. If the other side won't back off, we sometimes get infuriated, and that results in the danger of the situation being stepped up. We see this in 'street' confrontations, where the willingness to carry a knife as a 'warning' symbol is soon replaced by a willingness to use it for real, as the various young males competing for status and dominance become enmeshed in an arms race. The reason for this variability of human response is our lack of defined weaponry. Because our ability to damage others varies according to what we carry, its not possible for the rituals to replace the real thing.

 

Oh and by the way, if another herd is eating your food, 'survival of the fittest' definitely means getting rid of them. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

I think you rely too much on self-professed experts. You do need to evaluate your sources.

[ASCLEPIADES]

No - the japanese junta were determined their country would fight to the death, typical of their militaristic psuedo-samurai code. The landings at Okinawa had already shown the japanese were willing to entertain that idea, especially since the grip of the junta on their minds was still very strong at that point. Although civilians did surrender, they had been told the american were animals hell bent on atrocity. There is a memorable film sequence of a woman throwing herself off a cliff rather than give herself up to the americans. The russian declaration of war barely had time to make itself felt, and in any case, since the japanese were determined to make a heroic last stand of their islands, it really wasn't going to convince them. What did make a deep impression was two cities being flattened.

Or maybe just one city would have been enough, as there were only 3 days between both nukes; who knows? Anyway, I didn't write the recipe; I just quoted it. Any guess on the relative contribution of any factor is just speculative from any of us.

 

No. The ritual displays are there to prevent harm, and human beings already have those. Its called shouting your mouth off. Sometimes its called politics. But since we're an aggressive creature with strong territorial instincts its often necessary to bare our fangs and claws. If that doesn't work, we use them. Human beings play brinkmanship in confrontations. If the other side won't back off, we sometimes get infuriated, and that results in the danger of the situation being stepped up. We see this in 'street' confrontations, where the willingness to carry a knife as a 'warning' symbol is soon replaced by a willingness to use it for real, as the various young males competing for status and dominance become enmeshed in an arms race. The reason for this variability of human response is our lack of defined weaponry. Because our ability to damage others varies according to what we carry, its not possible for the rituals to replace the real thing.

 

Oh and by the way, if another herd is eating your food, 'survival of the fittest' definitely means getting rid of them. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

I think you rely too much on self-professed experts. You do need to evaluate your sources.

Actually, I would rather like to rely on your biology sources, if you may quote them.

[caldrail]

Heck, I just look out the window. Don't need a scientific analysiis by a university professor to the animal life out there.

[Honorius]

Tobias already addressed the topic rather well...in my opinion and most other Australians agree that the feats on both sides at Gallipoli was nothing more then heroic...