ANZAC day

[Robinivich]

There are so many terrible shaping victories and defeats that came out of that war, and trying to compare isn't the greatest tactic.

The big deal for Australia (and New Zealand, there must not be any Kiwi's on the forums, we're all forgetting them) is that it was a massive bloodletting created by the "mother country" and marked the beginning of their being a nation.

Canada's was Vimy Ridge, which was actually earlier this month. 

Newfoundland had it's only regiment go over the top at Beaumont-Hamel on July 1st, the opening of the Somme.  July 1st is Canada day everywhere in Canada except Newfoundland, where it is called memorial day.

The French need only one word to sum it up, "Verdun"

The Russians have a whole different story.

The bloodiest day in English military history was also July 1st, the first day of the Somme.

 

[Sir Prince]

If the British officers who ordered and planned the attack on Passendale were still alive I'd throw eggs at their houses and leave burning bags od dog crap on their door steps. It wasn't even that improtant of a position and 10,000 Canadian soldiers were killed (or wounded, not sure if that was casulties or deaths, either way it's still a lot of people). The Battle of the Somme was just stupid, 1,000,000 men were killed within (however many) months. for a mere dozen or so kilometers. Vimy Ridge was one of the greatest military victories in Canadian history.
In World War 2 our worst defeat was the Dieppe Raid, there were several problems plus a few more that happened. The beach was pebbley and the tanks couldn't move, there were high cliffs and well entrenched german troops everywhere. The fleet ran into a couple of German ships and the sounds of that battle alerted the Germans in Dieppe and delayed the fleet by a couple of hours so the raid took place after dawn and the element of surprise was lost. I can't remember how many casulties and how many were taken prisoner, but I think it was at least 1500 men. I don't really know much about Juno beach except we took it. After that the bastard Brit generals got us bogged down without enough supplies and support in Holland, we managed to win but I think the casulties were from 3000+, or maybe 6000? Not sure, although we did gain the love of the Dutch.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Gallippoli campaign was of tremendous importance. Its success would be a great benefit to Entente because:
1. Turkey would be out of the war. That means that Russian army on Caucasus would be deployed against Germans.
2. Russia could be supplied through the Black Sea. Odessa was the best way of supplying Russia because:
a) it was the closest to the frontline port avaliable. Therefore, the least strain on Russias extremely overstreched tranbsport system.
b) there were 3 ports avaliable: Odessa, Archangelsk and Vladivostok.
Vladivostok was further from the Eastern Front than London...
Archangel could not be supplied during winter due to ice in the sea and it was poorly connected to the rest of Russia (I think it didn't even have a railroad connection!)
Odessa had railroad, was close to the frontline, and was safely accessable if Istanbul (at the time, Constantinople) was taken.
3. Bulgaria would be surrounded by Entente forces and would not dare to join the Central powers. Without stab in the back from Bulgaria, Serbia would have held and would keep drawing a large portion Austro-Hungarian forces.

Therefore, Russia would be in much greater shape and would not fall in 1917.



However, it was mishandled. ANZAC was landed at the wrong spot and naval attack faled miserably. British should have coordinated with Russia and land at several spots simultaneously, overstreching the Ottoman Army.

 

[calandale]

And they should have sent a large enough force to actually be able to implement the stated goals. The damned thing was a vain-glorious sideshow, which Churchill and others managed to push through, even though the number of troops was cut to the point where it would not have been able to knock Turkey out of the war. This happens way too much when democracies wage war.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

I agree that much larger force should have been involved (my comment that there should have been more landing spots).
Gallipoli was crewed up similarly to the Market Garden - operation would be success only if most of the objectives were reached - which happens rarely. In Market Garden paratroops did a marvelous job, but, since armor screwed up, all their accomplishments amounted to nothing.

Turks were able to concentrate their forces against ANZAC. Once ANZAC initial advance was stopped, the whole operation was doomed. With many landing sites, such concentration would have been impossible.

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

Yeah, he's obviously hiding WMDs.
While there are a surprising number of reasons to fight someone, I draw the line at religious fundamentalism. I personally don't think I deserve to be blown to pieces in a nightclub, just because I like a drink now and then.

There you go, that's something I'd definitely fight against, religious fundamentalism in any of it's forms, from any religion.

Most definitions of "fundamentalism" really show how much this word has changed since the advent of the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist bombings.

"Fundamentalism" used to mean a return to the basic tenants of a particular religion, usually involving a general departure from the secular realm.  Now, the meaning of the word apparently applys to any movement where the followers of that movement will kill others for what they believe.

I normally don't use thit term to describe myself, but I am a fundamentalist Christian.  This means that I hold the "fundamentals" of scripture to be inerrant and altogether true.  As a fundementalist Christian, I believe that anyone who wants to have, hold, read, or quote the Bible has that right.  I equally believe that anyone who doesn't want to have, hold, read, or quote from the Bible should have that choice.  I'd fight for the rights of people in my country to believe in whatever they'd like, even if I strongly disagreed with their position and beliefs.  I firmly believe that there is only one way to heaven, through Jesus Christ, though I strongly believe that others who hold different views must be respected, loved, and even cherished.

Fundamentals aren't that bad, Randy.  Terrorism, however, is evil.

 

[thesneakster]

I agree that much larger force should have been involved (my comment that there should have been more landing spots).
Gallipoli was crewed up similarly to the Market Garden - operation would be success only if most of the objectives were reached - which happens rarely. In Market Garden paratroops did a marvelous job, but, since armor screwed up, all their accomplishments amounted to nothing.

Turks were able to concentrate their forces against ANZAC. Once ANZAC initial advance was stopped, the whole operation was doomed. With many landing sites, such concentration would have been impossible.

But still, even after we had been there for months, we were still makeing advancements. Our 'initial advance' was stopped after we'd take the third ridgeline from the shore, but we took 10 odd KM by the time we pulled out.

 

[ferretsniper]

Haha someone reported me to the admins for saying stfu in my post to the insensitive pricks who posted before me. More than likely he skimmed my post for something to report me on and found it ignoring the rest of my post completely 

 

[Mage246]

Gallilpoli was Churchill's fault how? He was one of the primary backers of the campain, but was he there, on the scene? No....

From what I've read, Gallilpoli was the fault of the admirals on the scene. Maybe the plan still would have failed if they hadn't scrwed up, but it definately would not have been such a massacre. And if it had succeeded, as others have noted, it would have been a massive victory for Britain, well worth the effort. Churchill got a bad rep at the time for his involvement in that fiasco, but his plan was sound. I've read some really incredible stuff about how stupid the admirals in command were, however.

 

[Randy]

I really do hope that we've militarily learnt our lesson and I believe we have. Because I'm joining the Australian Army like my brothers have and if I'm at any point told 'we're going to the beach', I'll be crapping my dacks.

Most definitions of "fundamentalism" really show how much this word has changed since the advent of the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist bombings.

"Fundamentalism" used to mean a return to the basic tenants of a particular religion, usually involving a general departure from the secular realm.  Now, the meaning of the word apparently applys to any movement where the followers of that movement will kill others for what they believe.

I normally don't use thit term to describe myself, but I am a fundamentalist Christian.  This means that I hold the "fundamentals" of scripture to be inerrant and altogether true.  As a fundementalist Christian, I believe that anyone who wants to have, hold, read, or quote the Bible has that right.  I equally believe that anyone who doesn't want to have, hold, read, or quote from the Bible should have that choice.  I'd fight for the rights of people in my country to believe in whatever they'd like, even if I strongly disagreed with their position and beliefs.  I firmly believe that there is only one way to heaven, through Jesus Christ, though I strongly believe that others who hold different views must be respected, loved, and even cherished.

Fundamentals aren't that bad, Randy.  Terrorism, however, is evil.

I'm glad you knew what I meant by 'fundamentalism' then. But the problem with religious fundamentalism, is that not every body is so understanding as you and they take their beliefs to the point where it deprives others of their liberty. This is not only perpetrated by some terrorists, but by the theoretical complete opposite: governments.

But surely, if we're unrepentant sinners, destined for hell, corrupting the rest of mankind with our impure ideas why should fundamentalists care about our freedoms or well being? I'm quiet certain that one could interpret many justifications in the bible for killing sinners.

Because to a fundamentalist, the death of sinners in not murder, it's holy.

 

[Taal]

Hey guys, just got back from the anzac march..... that i was part of. Ferret calm down, those aussies who died in war were also laid back and probaly wouldnt get offended at this. i think its great we can have a discussion on the topic, it raises awareness. now enjoy your day off you lazy good for nothing fellow australians

 

[Ingolifs]

Don't forget New zealand was involved, too. It was called Australia New Zealand Army Corps, not Australian Army Corps.

I see no one's brought up the main reason behind the existance of ANZAC. It's all about the phrase 'lest we forget'. It's not celebrating the heroics or the victories of the Gallipoli campaign, it's highlighting the sheer loss of life that the ANZACs incurred in Gallipoli. It's about remembering how in war, poor planning, coupled with a cavalier "it'll all be one big adventure" attitude senselessly cost the lives of many people. By remembering we'll be less inclined to let it happen again.

Also, don't forget both australia and New Zealand as nations were only about 60 years old at the time. They didn't have the marks and scars of millennia of conflict, and to them, Gallipoli was the single biggest loss of life in their history.

 

[Sir Prince]

It was on the 10 o'clock news tonight, with footage of a reenactment, probably from the 40s or 50s. It's easy to tell if it's a reinactment, if people are dieing is a major sign, and if they are just falling down like living people pretending to get killed that's also a sign it's fake. Also if the camera has footage from the Turkish point of view and the footage looks the same.

 

[thesneakster]

It was on the 10 o'clock news tonight, with footage of a reenactment, probably from the 40s or 50s. It's easy to tell if it's a reinactment, if people are dieing is a major sign, and if they are just falling down like living people pretending to get killed that's also a sign it's fake. Also if the camera has footage from the Turkish point of view and the footage looks the same.

Yeah, you really don't think that a camera man would get up on a raised position to take the photo's.

 

[Ingolifs]

"man shot by foreigner, what a scoop!"

 

[Worbah]

Fundamentalis is, AFAIK, taking the writings of your religion literally.

 

[rejenorst]

If bravery and comradery is not worth celebrating, then I don't know what is.

Why is there no holiday commemorating the bravery and dedication of the Wehrmacht soldiers who fought and died to defend the Third Reich?

Hell, there should be. I think the German people (yes German jews especially) got a ****ty deal from the go.

A DAMNED GOOD POINT... Apparently there is a huge ammount of wehrmacht bones in a storage facility somewhere in one of the baltic countries or Russia. Not one German politician as had the balls to ask for them to be buried.

When the russians pulled out of east Germany we asked for some land back from the Germany government which we owned but had to leave.
Spent 20 years asking for it back until we got a letter saying ok this is how much we will compensate you for based on these calculations. (in the final sum they took out some money owing in debts on the land but they were already paid off.)

When we told them they sent a letter back saying well your grandad was a Major in the Waffen-SS therefore we conclude he was a warcriminal entitling you to nothing. ( He was Captured in Chekoslovakia, spent 6 years in a russian concerntration camp, came back to germany, received his denazification papers from the Americans and put himself on trial for war crimes to get everything over with and was found not guilty for any crimes.)

Now i have to say thats a slap in the face. The guilt carries on to me even though my grandad never commited warcrimes, he wore a black uniform and was mostly responsible for the agriculture and forestry with brief stints at the Russian front because he could speak Russian.

Somehow its ironic that no country in the world particularly the US will not say sorry for any of its warcrimes yet the entire population has to say it even 50 years after.

And just to be fair. My grandmother on my mothers side was deported by the Germans, she gets a small bit of compo for that. My grandad on my mothers side fought against the germans and was captured by them and spent the end of the war in prison.

So im not one sided. But i think that alot of Germany's guilt trip is giving rise to more Neo-Nazis who are tired of being told their country and its youth has to carry the guilt.




In conclusion personally I think all wars are in vain, i find most countries are hypocrites and all flags are tinted in blood somewhere through history. I have yet to see another country apologize for its warcrimes. I may be wrong but I havnt seen a president get up there and say sorry for attrocities in vietnam, iraq, kosovo, Sudan etc

 

[NikkTheTrick]

But still, even after we had been there for months, we were still makeing advancements. Our 'initial advance' was stopped after we'd take the third ridgeline from the shore, but we took 10 odd KM by the time we pulled out.

10 odd kilometers meant little. Turks have entranched well, line after line. ANZAC would be slaughtered completely trying to break through. Gallippoli was too small ,there was little place to maneuver, to concentrate forces on weakened portion of the front.

Initial failures meant that ANZAC achievements, no matter how herois, would amount to nothing. The attack was understrength and, therefore, was bound to fail.

 

[Alpertunga]

i think sufficient.  everybody now friend example now in turkısh tv show anzac and turks days seramoni everyboy hand in hand says anthems  2 country in Gallippoli

 

[thesneakster]

But still, even after we had been there for months, we were still makeing advancements. Our 'initial advance' was stopped after we'd take the third ridgeline from the shore, but we took 10 odd KM by the time we pulled out.

10 odd kilometers meant little. Turks have entranched well, line after line. ANZAC would be slaughtered completely trying to break through. Gallippoli was too small ,there was little place to maneuver, to concentrate forces on weakened portion of the front.

Initial failures meant that ANZAC achievements, no matter how herois, would amount to nothing. The attack was understrength and, therefore, was bound to fail.

None the less, the officers told us to advance, and we advanced.